New Nacra 17

New Nacra 17footer
Double handed
Curved foils

www.nacra.ca

I honestly dont get the reasoning behind it.
Would be easier to just get the F16 and take the jib off.

One-design that doesn't interfere with existing F16 or F18 classes

How much does it weigh?

around 130 kg

aka Olympic equipment proposal?

Isn't the idea of one-design to have enough of the same boat to constitute a "one-design" ... else you're simply racing Portsmouth ... and competing/interfering with F16 and F18.

My guess is that unless the N-17 offers something substantially radical from either an F16 or F18 I just don't see it catching on. Too much momentum in the other racing categories.

286 lb. Good luck.

What's it rate?

designed and build for the OG. Specs based upon ISAF requierments

Which I think is actually pretty smart. It will be interesting to see what approach other manufacturers have taken. Submissions were due last week. I guess we'll know soon.

F18 weight but with curved foils. The sail/rig plan should be interesting. Cost could be minimized by adopting either the F16 or F18 rig. Always cool to see trickle down innovation.

Should be interesting if it was a submission for the evaluation because the boats need to be in Spain by mid-March.

If selected hopefully they'd do a F18 rig. Much cooler to watch people sail things that are WAAAAAYYYYY over powered, and doing it well than to watch a regular boat sailed well. in my opinion anyway.

Plus the crashes have potential for being that much more marketable.

it is 50kg lighter then an F18

I don't get it. Nacra is just now coming out with an F16, and they already have a good grip on the F18 market...so...their marketing strategy is to...?

Compete with themselves?

Unless this is a boat aimed only for Olympic consideration, I don't see it ever getting started as a OD class, just like their earlier F17, I17, I17R, etc. never caught on in big numbers.

IF...and this is a huge IF, they got together with Hobie, and started a real F17 class, box rule, etc. maybe you could resurect the Hobie 17's to race agains the N 17's, but I don't see a real demand for an -in between- boat.

Oh... you have no imagination...

Maybe they said that the F16 class is fatally flawed by design... (1 up and 2 up.... boat weight and a limited development philosophy). It is... what it is... growth as a racing class will be limited. Nacra has covered their assets because they have a boat for those sailors in any case that they just released .... If the F16 class gets their stuff together... terrific... they are on board.

Moreover, ... The F16 class world wide is quite small and not even close to the F18 class in terms of market share of the racers... It is hard to market the F16 as a practical formula class for racing when the critical mass in most of the world is just not there.... It is hard to have two formula classes where the major difference is ... 2 feet and weight. One class will win the hearts of the hard core OD racer class and that is likely to be the F18's. No matter if this POV is wrong... they have a boat in the market where it does fly.

That still leaves a real market opportunity for a boat that is state of the art (curved foils... looks like AM cup classes of boats or the A cats/N20c and has the SMOD controls that many people (in fact) like. A racing class can form from F18 teams that drop down for the new technology and F16 teams that jump up for new technology. They could look at the Melges marketing and say... why not us in multihulls and build a high end racing circuit like the melges factory has. Moreover... if you think of the boat as having a 5 year racing life time and the class as lasting about 7 to 10 years... the timing is perfect The problem with a boat that must have a FLEET is.. fleets are slow to form (Look how long it's taken the F18 to catch on in the USA)... they will market the N17 as more future proof then an F16 (its going on 10 years old) ... Hey.. you will be racing state of the art open boats in most of the world. .... why not pay the premium for the curved boards...(the EU actually does race cats in open.. so.. Why not buy the baddest boat in this size range. (if you customize it further... you can get it measured for a rating cert) Cat sailors ALWAYS have this itch for new technology... the Hobie 16 is the ONLY cat class that compares to boats like Thistles, Albacores, or any of the classic dinghys that have 40 year old histories of being built and raced. Cat sailors LOVE new and hot.... we have a huge dead boat society as proof.

Finally, the Olympic Mixed Multihull selection is a unique opportunity. Olympic selection is wide open... who knows what the committee will want... low tech... (pick a Nacra F16... or high Tech... pick Nacras new 17) They can use the instant professional class that will form in this N17 boat to jump start this elite racing class. And it lets the Mixed Multihull selection committee off the hook on a charge that they undermined an existing class by picking a flavor of either the F16 or F18 fleets.... Olympics are unique... why not an Olympic "professional" boat.... hey... that was the reason for the birth of the Tornado (a very different time and place in the multihull world).

Finally, look at how little risk there is in tooling up this boat. all of the metal hardware is probably identical to the F16... So... you have good scalability... if it has a carbon rig... (probably does..) it not only works for the Olympic measurement issues... but it is definitely the upscale small cat to buy. Much of the design work was already done for the 20... How difficult is it to scale it down and build a mold.

Note.... this story is pulled completely from my a$$ and certain to get a few pots boiling in the cold of winter.

The clue is in the name .... It's not an F 17
Nacra have had enough of propping up f classes and deserve an OD fleet with some longevity where they don't have to tool up for a new model every 2 years

Is this an actual 17' boat or is it just Nacra's F16 (at 16.4 or so feet) with curved foils rounded up to be called a Nacra 17?

I think I was viewing it in the context of the Nacra 17s of the past, which were always singlehanders.
I do think it could have an edge over the F16s at the Olympic trials though, the curved foils and the wider crew weight range will appeal to a lot of current F18 sailors.

Fresh new 17' cat....in effect a scaled down F20 Carbon with around a 2.6m beam

Although labelled as a Nacra 17 it is in fact 17'6" long!...more detailed info to follow....

Very, very cool!

It does have the making over here to go singlehanded as a OD class IF PROPERLY MARKETED. I would buy one as a UNI w/spin over a F16.

The F16 class can't figure out what it is..single or sloop but most would contend it is sloop class. Measurement rating systems world-wide also suggest the F16 is 2 separate boats with the AUS yardstick being spot on with the data I have collected. That being said, the new Nacra 17 has CURVED FOILS!!!

At the 17'6" length, it will sail better than the F16. Don't ask me how I might know!

Peace out!

The F16 Class has already 'figured out what it is', it's a class that allows the flexability to race two up or Uni, uncorrected.

That's the way WE like it.

Just because YOU don't like it, doesn't mean it's not a legit class.

How many F17 NA's and Worlds have their been?

I didn't see a single F17 at Tradewinds.

I did see a single Hobie 17, and it was very nice...but lonely.

Get over yourself Bob.

Funny! In a lot of ways, I'm WAY past and over you guys. I was simply expressing my opinion that I spent 20 years of my life defending to do!

Do you or anybody else have a problem with that? I won a bet on who would answer first!!

Now go feed the horses, I am!
Later.

So now you have lowered yourself to Master Flame Baiter?

I thought you were better than that.

And which of these is it you're saying the new 17 is?

Does anyone know who makes Nacra's masts?

Yes, I know who makes their carbon masts...pm me for an answer

I think it will be one OR the other as a racing class es...

Obviously with the mixed multihull submission... it's going as a two person spin boat.

Curry's point is that WITH THE RIGHT MARKETING.... It could work as a single handed spin boat stand alone class... the advantage it would have over a formula class (F16) is that as a SMOD.....You won't be on development cycle like A cats... or in fear that a light and legal F16 appears that undermines your investment. (He argues that it will sail better at that lenght)

So, We don't think Nacra will make the error of saying... One up and two up... are equal... The sailors that join together to form a class (the one up class .... or the two up class) would not make that mistake. At the club level... race F16 N17 and F18 even up.. or on handicap... what ever floats your boat the best.

Given the sail area of the 17 and forecasted performance, it could only be a 2 man boat....... unless you had a set of balls the size of the moon

Given the sail area of the 17 and forecasted performance, it could only be a 2 man boat....... unless you had a set of balls the size of the moon

OK now!!!! what is it's rating in texel or schrs?

Apparently, Bob thinks his are and will need them to right that sucker single handed!

Should be a wild ride and will be interesting to see curve foils on a smaller platform. Hopefully, the boat will be ready by mid-March for the trials.

You're right. I was thinking of the F18 min platform weight. It should be fast.

Does it also come with a wing? Price?

If you have to ask, you can't afford it.

Does it come with a two piece mast option...so it fits in a 20 foot container? That might be a hint as to it's target.

I thought they dumped the 20' requirement.

yep

Bobs posting : 7 sentences with 4 references to the F16's and none to other makes.


I think the F16 class is proving to be quite secure as long as the F16's are used as the benchmark against which to weight any new design. Especially when done so by the likes of Bob Curry.

Regards,

Wouter

Other then that, that picture of the nacra 17 looks exactly like the one in the official release brochure of the nacra F16 with the inward canted boards replaced by curved ones.

What was that saying again ?

Imitation is the best form of flattery ?


Wouter

How many of you saw that coming? Bob you are evil!

+1

Yeah but Pete I really don't think Bob is evil. I'm just having a little fun with the situation I actually kinda like Bob although his choice of friends is suspect.

The opening was there so...

Bob is so evil that his posts just forced me to cut myself.

See how evil he is?
:P

Bob made me do it.

I think an important point has been brought up though... The F16 was specifically conceived of as a 1-up or 2-up boat. It's great for each but not optimized for either.

The Olympic Committee has no interest in 1-up. I can easily see them going for a boat that has been optimized for 2-up crews of three-hundred pounds and it is reasonable that such a boat would be faster than an F16 that is sailed with the same sort of crew.

I also expect that they would be much more interested in a one design class over a development (even a limited-development) class. And I figure they would want a design that is already internationally adopted (which this new Nacra 17 is obviously not.)

I'm guessing they will have a hard choice ahead of them.

The evaluation criteria (pdf) have been spelled out pretty explicitly and that's not one of the considerations. The closest is this -

When the Tornado was the Cat in the Olympics, was it considered a "Developmental Class" or was it One Design...or neither?

Probably, but I could mortgage something and I might consider stealing if the new olympic cat is winged, has curved foils and sails foilborne

The T was a development class.

No the B class was the development class. Tornados were a one design. Not to be confused with a single manufacturer one design.

I still believe that the AHPC Viper (F16) stand the best chance of being selected over the "just recently announced designs"

I don't think the F16 class as a formula class is in any way likely to be selected. Mostly because I don't see any effort on that front to be slected, just as the F18 class is not actively seeking selection.

It is all up to the individual builders with their individual designs and the succesful F16 and Taipan parent classes guarantee that already lots of development have gone into these designs especially with regard to sailshapes. What more can you wish for?

Other then that the Viper is an excellent choice in my opinion and has the beginnings of a great fleet the world over. It fits the mixed crew criteria perfectly. Furthermore, the succes in the Taipan and F16 parent classes have led to lots of development related to the overall design and sailshapes especially.

What more can you wish for ?

Tornado was one-design but with some freedom on sails, equipment, layout of equipment etc. As building methods went from plywood to sandwich and the introduction of tighter production control procedures the class rules were tightened up to reflect this.
The last version of the class rules were very much one-design on the aspects that matters but with freedom to lay out control systems etc as you like.

Does the F16 class have an official standpoint about submissions made to the selection event like the F18 class does?

If one design is selected over another that would be a huge benefit to that manufacturer and maybe distort the market as it is now?

To me, this 17 looks to be the best boat for the job. Nacra have got the world wide availability and have been propping up formula classes for 20 years now while other manufacturers seem to come and go as they feel.
Nacra deserve a successful one design fleet and this 17 could be it.
It's the best marketing move that they have done to date!

Wow!

1) We don't need another class!

2) This is actually great idea from Nacra to steal the Olympic bid and corner a market. New boat that takes the best all designs to create a OD. Not a bad idea. If selected, I see the F16 & F18 go by the way side because most will migrate to this over time. I will!

3) The F18 is just too big and heavy as a consideration as a mixed crew.

4) F16 - Personally, I'd like to see the F16 be selected because its open to competition and availability would be easier. On the same token, because this is a development class it gives way to new designs and observance of existing F16 designs. Look at the f18 and the Tiger. Giving the selection to any one mfg is not a good thing for anyone if you really think about it guys.

TW

So...you think the F18 is "...just too big and heavy as a consideration as a mixed crew."

But somehow a boat that is just 6 inches shorter is not? OK, maybe it's lighter, but once it's in the water, the working loads, and trimming the sails, etc. will be about the same.

You really think all the F18 and F16 sailors are going to bail and all jump on the "New F17"?

Really?

Don't hold your breath.

"Nacra deserves a successful one design fleet"

Wow.... Deserves....

That is bass backwards.... The customer drives the process..

So... do you hear ANY talk on the beach that SMOD is missed?
Do you see any upset among the formula sailors (F16 or F18) that development is too fast and they want to go back to SMOD .... (If any thing... some people are itching to ramp it up.)
Had you ever had a conversation that resolved... What we REALLY NEED in cat racing is a boat BETWEEN 16 and 18 that out performs all of em...

Maybe Nacra knows something of customers that they don't know of themselves. I know for a fact that customers don't think nacra deserves a dammn thing.

A racing class needs critical mass of people who want to do the same thing..... Does the Nacra carbon 20 (I don't even know what the proper class name is) have that critical mass of racers anywhere? I read somewhere that Nacra new 20 sales have stopped as those people who wanted that kind of ride got one and the market is now full. 2 of the 4 (or so thought to be in NA are now for sale in the states.

Seems to me that if the boat is selected for mixed multihull then it will have an instant class that will look like the Tornado class of the last 15 years...eg small and professional.... Otherwise..... I don't see it making a class and so it will be just another nice boat.

(maybe NACRA will invest/sponsor handicap racing to give their SMOD boats a game to play in)... he he

I'm not worried, in my opinion if the Nacra 17 is selected as the Olympic equipment the impact to the F18 class would be about the same as if the F16 (Viper) was selected. In my opinion if the Viper is selected the F16 class would take a bigger hit than if the Nacra 17 is selected. First thing that comes to mind would be fiddling with the class rules.

As for the class moving to a lower weight F18... still not worried, the F18HT isn't exactly posting huge numbers on the starting lines.

Is the multihull community (besides Bob) jonesing to get back into a SMOD class? There are a LOT of people that have been soured on the concept and formula has become the norm. As sexy and attractive as the Nacra 17 is it will have it's own baggage to deal with. No sleep lost here.

SCREW SMOD!!!

It's a greedy monster.

"In my opinion if the Viper is selected the F16 class would take a bigger hit than if the Nacra 17 is selected. First thing that comes to mind would be fiddling with the class rules. "

I'm not following your logic. Imo, these are two different things, an Olympic boat and F16 class.

The Viper is successful in it's own right and fills a market niche. An Olympic version might be lighter than the standard model, built of solid Unobtainium so that it is stiff to a fault, cost much more and still fall within the F16 class rule. Still only an elite sailor will be able to utilize the enhanced performance.

Press release from Nacra:

http://nacrasailing.com/index.php?o...mp;catid=35%3Anews#.TyK-3DQXnw0.facebook

Formula Class racing removes the yardstick/handicap variable while keeping the racing open to multiple builders while encouring controlled development. I see it as here to stay.

I would even argue that the formula concept improves racing between classes.

Proof will be on the water... (can they get the bugs worked out in time)


the assertion that 17-6 carries loads better ???.... Huh? the range of the competitors is the issue. so starting at 260 lbs and up... Does 17-6 give you a larger range then 16 feet. I don't understand how more sailpower/larger boat results in lower sheet loads for the sheet hand. so... proof will be on the water.

Won't disrupt any racing class world wide. I think this is a major plus factor.

EG... Miami OCR's are 600 bucks for 5 days of racing... and a spaghetti dinner/cash bar! The mixed multi circuit will then duplicate this event several more times around the world and the class leaders will be off to play overseas at similar week long events. Totally different culture then the popular racing classes in the US. IMO... having Mixed Multihull cleanly off on their own boat.... with feeder class of F16 and F18 is a huge plus for the Nacra boat IMO.

The committee wants a boat with the max crew range that will not discourage sailors from countries who's people are smaller in stature. So... if 17-6 and their rig works better then the F16 solution... time will tell.

I think you missed his point.

Dave et al, it is pretty damn hard to fiddle with the F16 rules and it is offensive to all that are involved in the F16 class, including the manufacturers. In fact, I have been pleasantly surprised by the civility and cohesiveness by all parties involved.

Just don't drink the Kool-Aid and you'll be OK !!! Of course there will be marketing spin...it is to be expected but in the end, the F16 class is bigger than any one manufacturer or region in the world.

Kris... Isaf won't "fiddle" with the class rules...

They just lay out the paramaters for olympics.... "The Olympic TORNADO class will have double traps and a spinnaker". The regatta circuit to qualify is this. the Worlds are at XXX. Now... the class members gets to choose... Tornado (run by the class) or Olympic Tornado (run by isaf). The T Class rank and file members voted NOT to add a spin and trap.... then ISAF spoke... then magic happened and the class rank and file fell in line... the Tornado Class had double traps and a spin

... First thing that comes to mind would be fiddling with the class rules ...


They may fiddle with the Viper class rules all they want, but the F16 class rules will proceed as it has done over the last 10 years.

In that respect both the F18 and F16 classes share a common vision.

I can think of several marketing advantages to keeping Viper in the F16 class. But I see nothing keeping AHPC from building an Olympic Viper. Again, one does not exclude the other.

Mark...and?????

I do not believe that the F16 class is going to adopt 2-piece masts as mandatory because one of the F16 boats would be required by virtue of being an Olympic boat. Do you?

I do not see the F16 class requiring all regattas to be 2-up mixed just because the Olympic competition requires it. Do you?

The Tornado example is poor. Single, tightly controlled design. Certainly not the formula classes today.

Kris, the post was not penned with intent to offend anyone. It's just an opinion based on my observations and what I know motivates people. By all means feel free to disregard it.

... Does 17-6 give you a larger range then 16 feet. ....


Should read : Does 17-6 give you a larger range then 16-5 feet.


F16's are actually longer then 16 foot too.

Noone's offended as far as I can see, just more conjecture on what IOC's intentions are.

In the end, imo, it will be ONE boat for the Olympics and it will be similar to the AC45. Because those folks have the clout to make it happen.

While I don't see much difference between the nacra F16 and the nacra 17, I do think their argument about the latter not interfering with any existing class does hold water.

Other then that they can just as easily put curved boards on the nacra F16 and get the same benefits while reducing stocks and production costs. Give the boat a different name like nacra O-cat for Olympic cat and everything will be dandy. Best of both worlds ?

After all the claim is that with lifting foils one dependents alot less on hull length for performance, right ?

I too like the fact that this is separate from the existing formula classes and shouldn't impact them negatively to any great degree. What we don't know yet is what the other builders have proposed. It wouldn't surprise me to see additional non-Fxx submissions.

Just some random thought on the subject...Did anyone stop and think that this new NACRA 17 may be just a F18 in disguise? The mold could very well be set up as an F18 with just a 6” plug added to the rear to make it 17’-6”…for now. Or at least put them in a position to pounce with a new F18 if/when the class becomes willing to change their current limitations on weight and exclusion of curved boards.
It could also be a good test on how many would accept a lighter weight, curved board, state of the art design in the F18 “territory”…without all the back lash that they would get if they did it as a new anti-rule version of an F18. I would think it would be very hard to go back to a standard F18 after “tasting” all the best of the current design with some coveted upgrades. How many posts have been made which questioned the minimum weight or asked about the option of curved boards?

Very tactful way to draw people away from the status quo… rather than trying to “push” them into something that is actually better for them, but which they have chosen to vehemently resist. Same technique I hear they use to get stubborn cattle into a trailer…you line them up on the trailer ramp with their butt facing the trailer opening…then act like you are trying to pull them forward away from the trailer…they naturally want to resist and back up….which is of course exactly what you want them to do and they put “themselves” in the trailer with minimal effort. Cows….people…the principal is the same…and so is its effectiveness.

Lighter weight, curved boards...regardless of what you say...you know you want them...that's where everything is heading...
Do not resist...You will be assimilated....LOL...resistance is futile...LOL

Yes yes resistance is futile and the F18HT is a raging success. Bunch of f!@king haters.

it's pretty safe to assume that F18 is not going to get lighter or get curved boards in a long, long time (I stopped just short of saying "ever"). But, having an "almost" F18 that incorporates these things could be an interesting position in that teams could train with the huge global F18 fleet (on F18s) and transition to the new boat (essentially a lighter F18 with curved foils).

Was it the F18HT concept that was bad? or just the execution? It seems like another case where one attempt was made and written off just because that particular builder didn't get it right...or people tried to make a long distance racer out of a particular inland/protected coastal water design that was never engineered or designed for that extreme application.

It parallels the mentality that led to the demise of the 18sq class...one guy came up with a better idea and everyone else thru up their hands and gave up. Wishing much success to NACRA with their new 17 and their ability to build a +-18 footer that is reasonable in weight and incorporates the new improvements that curved dagger boards offer...lets hope they can bring it in at a competitive price or it will make it harder for anyone else to broach the subject in the future.

No hate here or profanity on this end...

Kris,

You're a little naive to think the F16 class rules will keep "Olympic Sailors" from making changes. They will exploit everything to no end. The F16 is about as open as they come and what you see today in the F16 class will be extinct by the 2016 Olympics. You'll see changes at very event to push the envelope because that is what happens.

As an owner of either an F16 or F18 whatever boat is selected will get highly competitive very fast. There are strong reasons not to want to be in this league for the average cat sailor.

By virtue that Nacra has introduce a totally new 17 concept has a lot of merit. No proven record of course but as s SMOD most development will be controlled. Take the Laser and the Euro Moth as just one example. While the Euro was a OD you could liter change everything to no end. The Laser is more cost effective and keeps the cost to a min and this has been the trend of what I think the Olympic committee wants to see.

TW

How many of the pros (no one commenting on this thread, no offense intended)in the F18 class will change their emphasis to an Olympic bid in any new class? Maybe they will be competing in both classes.

I hope that the selection process is transparent. Timely (daily) reports of the trials would be acceptable. If I could dig deep in my collection of Multihulls Magazines, I could find the report from when the "new" Toronado was selected. Back then with publishing delays I learned of the change months later. From what I have seen of the ISAF Technical Committee it is a highly qualified group. It includes builders,designers coaches and sailors, all with impressive resumes.

Will the choice make everyone happy?

NO.

What ever is chosen I only hope to get a ride on one. I'm just glad that a cat will be back in the Olympics.

You can be so superior.

Kris wrote.
I do not believe that the F16 class is going to adopt 2-piece masts as mandatory because one of the F16 boats would be required by virtue of being an Olympic boat. Do you?

Nope...

I do not see the F16 class requiring all regattas to be 2-up mixed just because the Olympic competition requires it. Do you?

Nope

BUT... ISAF will just create the new class and leave the F16's to their own devices... (lord knows you have your own quirky view of the world) The Tornado class sailors finally choose to get in line with the changes BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEY WOULD DIE A QUICK DEATH IF THEY DID NOT...

You would have F16 (1 up and 2up racing) and Olympic Viper (for example) racing... Olympic will have critical mass on the water..

Time and money are limited... Tell me how the F16 class would be served if 5 of your 20 racers at tradewinds this year were spending their money two weeks later at the OCR's in 2013.

The issue is not forcing the F16 class members to do something they don't want to... The issue is... can you have a viable F16 class when the top sailors race mixed multihull on a F16 flavor and so they don't really participate in F16 events.. You also have some non olympic F16 sailors with vipers who now can choose between two events... AND then you also compete for racers with the F18 and Hobie 16 class.

The F18 class went all out to discourage Olympic selection... I think they understood the situation as I present it.

Can they hit the mark on affordability with this boat so that MNA's think it is comparable in value and performance with the new woman's skiff to be chosen.
Does it have a bigger weight range for competitors.
Does it have sheet loads that allow woman to compete at either end.
Does it sail as well as the F16's and F18's for Olympic mixed.
Does the committee think this boat will hit the ground in numbers by the 2013 northern Hemisphere sailing season or do they need a boat with many units already out and about.

I hope they recruit an articulate set of test sailors from the target MNA's who can communicate about the choice.

I hope the answer is yes for the F16 class's sake and you only used up one of your nine lives.

Dave, superior? No ...just interested in catamaran development...have no hate for the F18 or any other class...it is just an interesting study looking at why people gravitate to one boat or another...why one person clings to a certain attribute and another is constantly looking for advancements...not saying one is better than the other...simple as that...no other agenda...I was trying to defuse any misrepresentation with the LOL's...I guess they didn't effectively communicate that...

As I said before...no hate here...life is too short... remember cat sailing, and talking about cat sailing is supposed to be fun.... not a high blood pressure trigger.

Everything is possible subject for discussion and cost/advantage ratio analysis, effect on the existing fleet, and sufficient notice given to all stakeholders...

So....that will happen in some shape or form anyway regardless of which boat is chosen. If the boat so happens to fit the F16 rule, then they will also be able to compete in F16 events. Do you really think that all existing F16 owners are going to pitch their non-F16 Olympic boat if an F16 compliant boat is chosen? Get real. Do you think that most F16 owners have any reasonable desire or chance to compete in the Olympics? Absolutely not.



You still don't get it. The F16 class enjoys its unique characteristics and you are missing out on the fun.



I beg differ. There will be the Olympic circuit that most F16 sailors do not and should not have any part in other than to admire and help support. It is for 5-diamond sailors only. The rest of us mortals enjoy the fun and weekend racing. If an Olympic team elects to race with us, it is on our terms.



Yes. Time and money are limited resources for most of us. However, you keep forgetting that the F16 class is not being selected and you are presupposing that all F16 owners will flip their rides for an Olympic F16....Maybe you (former Tornado owner) but most of us are realistic about what the F16 class is and our desire to compete in Olympic level competition.



You really need to read and think about your arguement. Suppose it is a non-F16 flavor that is chosen? Would it be any different....NOT.

Wouter: does the F16 class rules allow wings? Curved boards?
If they don't, a Viper with wing and curved boards would be my choice for the Olympics. A kite instead of the spi wouldn't hurt either.

Tom, you have it a$$-backwards. It would be naive to think that changes to the F16 class rules would be enforcable on an Olympic boat. You are way off in your statement.

Once again, the F16 class is not being selected. It is the possibility of a currently F16 compliant boat being selected. There is a big difference.

Broken record.....The F16 class is not a boat. It is a rule set for boats to comply with. There is no provision in the selection criteria for a formula class to be chosen. However, that does not preclude a formula class compliant boat from being selected.

Even with the tighest of rules do I think an open manufacturers' boat or formula class would even be considered today. The desire is to remove the boat as a variable in the podium standings.

I've voiced the opinion that it would be great to do it a la Alter Cup style (at least for the final rounds) but it has been voiced to me that this concept is blaphemy to the Olympic campaigner which I can respect given the inordinate amount of time that a team puts into knowing and preparing "their" boat.

Yup

Kris,

That is what I meant to say.

F16 class is NOT under evaluation, just one of the individual makes.

You and I are in fact saying the same.

I tell my wife that all the time when we race together on our F-18.

One thing I got from Mark Schneider's position is this... If the Viper (or Falcon or any other F-16 compliant boat) were chosen, what would happen to the F16 Nationals? Would it even be worth it for us part-timers to enter when the event is filled with olympic hopefuls?

The Phantom with Curved board will not be competing for the olympic bid.

What difference would it make? It is certainly the only chance I'd ever have to be on the same course as Olympic level sailors.

It would be nice to see from ISAF who has submitted what at this point.

http://catsailingnews.blogspot.com/2012/01/olympics-phantom-project-is-out-of.html

From the link above:

"...crew weight targets which are clearly not in line with real world data and experience."

Anyone know what the crew weight targets are?

120-140 kg

265-305lbs seems reasonable.
As an example, I'm 6'-2", ~160lbs. By American standards I'm a twig for my height, but consider myself to have an athletic build.
I'd need a female skipper in the weight range of 105-145lbs. Neither of the extremes is out of the question I think.

I'm not quite following the need for an upper limit. IIRC, the current Alter Cup champions were 345 lbs for that competition.

You also consider yourself intelligent and quick witted...just sayin'.

The weight given by ISAF was just a guideline for designers. The boat will not have an upper limit, but you will certainly see teams converge to an optimal weight for whatever boat is chosen.

Most of the sailing world is unaware how powerful the F16s are. Light teams will have a tough time being competitive in winds over 18knots.

305 seems to be optimal but note the 345 cited above.

Kris



My fundamental argument is that splintering a racing class by having two flavors of equipment in the class in play is a problem.

When you look at buying into a racing class you look at two related issues.. How many races are there for you to compete in.. where are these races and what is the critical mass of sailors at each event. The second issue... What is the competition in the class like and do I fit in.

You acknowledge the second point by noting that in your opinion many F16 sailors will not be vying for the Olympics and won't be attending the Olympic F16 XXX mixed multi events like the Miami OCRsd even if they had the boat. Many will not try the 5 diamond trail!

What is the effect splintering has on critical mass turnout for the two types of equipment? The Olympic mixed mulithull sailors will have a critical mass and all competitors will be on the same page "compete in Olympics". Competition will be keen. They won't be at F16 events because the competition will not be there for them. (granted... Probably not a loss to F16 class turnout )

What happens to the F16 class critical mass??.. The olympic sailors won't be there... How many core F16 sailors at the top of the fleet want to stick a toe into the Olympic pool and sail against these top olympic sailors... Since they have a mixed mulithull compliant boat... They may want to play in the silver fleet just for the competition. And time and money makes this their NA experience of the year. The effect on F16 turnout could be huge since the fleets are small (20 boats). IMO the potential bleeding off of the top of the fleet to the mixed multi F16 will hurt the critical mass of F16 sailors more then just a few boats.. If the top three sailors pass on the F16 event for the mixed multihull event... does turnout suffer beyond the loss of three boats? I notice that the PR campaign leading up to a NA's or mid winters is all about how many of the top dogs are racing and how big the party will be. IMO, without the top guns... attendance suffers. The three boats you lose to mixed are the WRONG three boats to lose. Will you travel a big distance if the turnout and competition appear to drop off. Of course, at the club level it won't matter.

My hope is that the committee leaves the F16 and F18 classes alone and creates a new Olympic class with their selection.

For example, Take a Viper and put curved foils in her (along with an upgrade kit of foils and cases for the existing vipers world wide). This Olympic Viper will clearly not be an F16 boat at that point. the Nacra 17 is a completely new boat with no class to effect.

What impact would selection have on the other classes

per the blog
http://catsailingnews.blogspot.com/2012/01/olympics-phantom-project-is-out-of.html

Realize... these submissions by and large are NOT from classes that voted to be Olympic (except for Roland and the T) ... rather... the builders are making a calculated economic decision... Is it good for the class or CLASS of sailors who race these boats??. Do the builders even give a damn about the Class opinion.

Hobie is going with the Hobie 16 and the Tiger.
The H 16 class is huge... they assume the class will function much like the Laser with few problems.
Tiger, the F18 class is not pleased but can't do much about it. Leveraging the existing F18 racing is good for Hobie and the long in the tooth Tiger class.... perhaps not so good for the F18 Class.

AHPC with the Viper
Nacra with the 17' and the 16"

IMO the F16 flavors are issues for the F16 class...because the F16 class is so much smaller then Hobie 16's or F18s.

New olympic classes like the Nacra 17 or a fantasy Viper with curved foils would not bother F16's.

Loday & White with the Spitfire S
Gabler with the old Tornado.

These are essentially two small regional classes (Brits and Germans) who might love to be Olympic (certainly a blast from the past for the T).

Based on our conversation with Dina (ISAF technical committe) I think cost, weight range and ability to hit the water with international competition by summer 2012 are the key selection factors after an acceptable sailing performance. I did not get a sense that the impact on the existing classes mattered all that much. IMO... it should be a factor!

F18 too big and heavy. Yep

The real question is what rig is Nacra putting on the 17. If its an F18 rig than not a good idea for a mixed crew.

Nacra 17 will have a 2 part carbon mast with a scaled down F20 Carbon sail plan.

But as a matter of interest and argument why do you believe an F18 rig is not suitable for an Olympic mixed team? I am ready for a row about this!

F18 rig wouldn't have the loads on a lighter boat like it does on a F18. That would be one powered up mofo though!

I wonder how many H16s an Olympic contender might go thru in an Olympic bid. 2,3,4 and of course a new one for the trials and the games. Not very cost effective but great for the second hand market.

What ever they select will have to stand up to a great deal more sailing then any of the current boats(with the exception of the Tornado) currently cycle thru.

I think this will be the biggest test for the selected boat.

I'd argue a different point. "It's just too big and heavy" not for mixed crews, but just in general. The T is 155kg, the F18 is 180kg, ~25% lighter.

If it's supposed to be a "pinnacle" event, put a fast boat out there. How long did the T reign supreme? I don't think that the Star or some of the other monos that are in the Olympics are good representations of the sailing world outside of the games. We've all moved on to faster/better platforms. Popular as the F18 may be, this boat should be leading, not following. If you want more television coverage, more sponsors, more sailors, more events; you have to pick a hot platform, not just b/c it's popular with the sailors.

True... but there is overwhelming support from the mna's for these boats. Representation of the sailing universe is not a goal... they tossed Keel boats from the games. enough said about popularity. This debate is settled.

The "PINNACLE" is about the event... not the boat... The event is single handed men's dinghy... not laser. The event is mixed multihull. (granted it's a new pinnacle but that is the cross we carry! More the point... it's settled)



Nope... that is a pipe dream.... What boat is faster, hotter, cooler then an AC45 right now...Raced by the biggest pro names in the sport. Yet, they can't break through on TV yet..

NBC/ESPN markets Olympic stories of sacrifice, victory over the hurdles, the human spirt.... Nobody cares about the boat type... Hell... nobody cares about the HORSE in the jumping competition... and I put my money on the HORSE as the big factor in that competition. The public only cares about our guys representing our nation winning gold.

IMO, we are best served with a boat that you can have 50 boats on the line by this summers end. (first)

A boat that woman have a shot at being the sheet hand as well as helm. (second)

A boat that the asian countries can fit their talent on and be competitive out of the box. (third)

Don't muck up an existing amateur class... (fourth)

YMMV

and all the sailors need to have very compelling stories/backgrounds for the marketing arm of the Olympics, right?

Right.... in mixed multihull.... PREGNANT will be Priceless.

If we could arrange the reality TV so that dad is from another country... World wide spectacle of human interest.

(and you think a flashy boat is all that's needed.... THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX MAN!)

or the father is the flying spaghetti monster?

Has Nacra built a Nacra 17 for the trials?

Yep, all new 17'6" boat with glass,carbon and epoxy hulls, 2 part carbon mast and curved daggerboards. 130kg all up weight......

Get some rules setup as F17 along the lines of the F16's rules and you would be surprised just how quickly the F18 dominance will be over.

Who wants to push another 50 kilos of outdated boat up and down the slipways when you could have the latest up to date toys to play with.

If that was the case everyone would already be sailing f18ht

+1

Why would Nacra go to the trouble of starting another formula, other manufacturers will jump on board and Nacra will have to develope a new model every few years to stay ahead

Surely is boat is destined to be a one design - especially if it gets selected

Nacra are in the business to make and produce boats, at the moment the F18's are old hat and sales are slow. Create something modern and desiriable and a lot of the sailors who may have not thought about buying a new boat because their old boat is doing OK, may well open their check books.

Why would they set up a new F formulae, OD is not going to compete with the F18 setup, setup a formulae with boats people want to aspire to and that formulae may quickly take over generating lots of new sales, ask AHPC what numbers of Viper they sell versus the C2. Get in early and dominate the sales and your production increases dramatically, get in late and you get the scraps. Get in early and you set the rules to suit your production.

Manufacturers also under estimate the desire to modify to suit ones own needs, OD stifles this. The greatest pain for any dealer network is the manpower needed to supply spares and parts, in small business's you want to sell and move on,take the money and not have to deal with peoples problems. Get the design and reliability right first time and your staffing levels are dramatically lowered.

F16 is not for all crews, F18's are now outdated technology, perhaps its time for a new F17.5 class. Perhaps the T Class was a good pointer to this with its demise within only a few years of its dropping from the Olympics, it may have been a very good boat, but people like new design and fashion and so they went else where.

Another analogy perhaps is car production, why do you think new models are launched virtually every 2 years, to sell loads of new ones. With modern CNC production of moulds and the likes, the cat manufacturers are going to have to do the same and can do the same, just look at how short a design and production time it has taken for NACRA to produce the 17.5.

Wayne, where are you getting your sales figures from for F18?

I know for a fact that there is a waiting list for the Phantom, and from my direct contact with other manufacturers and builders the level of sales at this stage in the year is up from 2011 which was also up from 2010 and so on.

Also, the greatest GAIN (not pain as you claim) in the dealer network is supply of spares, the margins are excellent for spares and many dealers make more money on a boat after it is sold than they do on the initial sale.

I've already stepped down from a 20 foot boat to an 18 footer. I'm not going to a 17 foot boat. Not only due to the size of the boat, but it's light and small making it even more sensitive to proper sailing crew weight. I'm pretty happy with my F18 and while it's heavy by F16 standards, it evens out the playing feild a little...and when two of us can no longer manage moving the boat around on shore, I need to quit anyway.

You can choose YOUR Olympic cat between the 7 of Santander on www.catamag.fr

You may be surprised at how complicated that decision can be!

Which is heavy by A cat standards... Where do you draw the line? Apples and oranges.

Jake, don't confuse weight with volume, my betting the new 17 alongside a F18 will be not that noticiably smaller and will carry two fully fit male crew no different than the F18. What you will get is that accelaration in the puffs from the much lower overall weight and semi foiling. Perhaps we should ask someone who has owned both an old N20 and the new F20C which boat they would sooner sail.

Macca I bow to better knowledge but I haven't seen a brand new F18 for a couple of years now other than at the F18 national champs where it was I think the Nacra dealers demonstrator. Would those same buyers stick with the F18's if a more modern class appeared and on the water was more fun to sail, I would suspect not.

As to business economics, yes they can make money by selling parts at grossly inflated prices in OD closed markets. Most business advisors would say that is not the best way to make money though as you limit your market to such a small cliental that your overall sales figures will be low. Has any manufacturer tried a get them out the door with widely available parts and change the model every two years other than the A Class which has a high initial cost, I can't think of any. By changing the business model maybe they would make even more money.

You need to get out more. I was at a regatta in FL last weekend, of the 11 F18's present, at least 5 were less than one year old!

I think he was talking about F18 Designs being 'old'. The Hobie Wild Cat F18 is pretty new, right? And that French Cirrus? How old is that design? And the C2 isn't more than a couple years old, right?

I think you guys are going down the Nuclear Arms Race track though, if you want a class that is dominated by a "New Design" every year.

I thought the whole point of Formula boats was to get the boats pretty even, and let the Sailors win the races?

But if a new design every year is what you want, the A class is available right now.

I doubt that the typical F18 crew fall into the 120-140kg weight range that the Nacra 17 is supposed to be optimized for. (or do most F18 crew sail with the small jib and spinnaker, or maybe you don't think that most F-18 sailors are "fully fit"? :-)

Somehow, I don't see "fully fit male crew" in the 160kg range jumping out of their F18s and into a boat that is designed for a mixed crew.

My wife and I don't even qualify for F18 racing because of the minimum crew weight rule.

That's why God invented the F16.

Better to ask... who they race their F20C (N17) against and how often?

If you are buying a race boat.. well... you need to trust the community that there will be races. That is why the F18 is going strong. to steal a phrase "It's not a fad"

The big regatta happening in Thailand could never happen in the USA. The 40 boats would be chopped into small OD fleets with separate starts. the two N20C's would be racing themselves. Very tough to grow from two boats.

Lord Wouter is laughing hysterically at this comment!

I'm glad you both got the joke!

Wouter, I bow down before you, and pray for your mercy.

Of course, I'm a Pagan..no, wait, a Wougan!

Went kiteboarding today because we had a regatta rest day... came in to the beach to find Nacra 17 hull #1 being assembled! The builders put together the boat in south Pattaya, then Coen and Gunnar met them with the 16s. All three boats sailed back to Varuna around sunset.

I have a few pictures, but will wait to post until Nacra releases images. It was cool being there (accidentally) for the champagne and first sail of the boat.

The boat looks absolutely awesome. The finish is beautiful, sails look good, and the curved foils are longer than those on the 20! Overall, it is a great looking package, and it was a privilege to help lift it into the water for the first sail!

Got an actual picture but no specs yet on the rig of the Nacra 17

http://www.facebook.com/multihull2016

http://www.mischasailing.com/2012/02/new-nacra-f17.html

Posted a couple photos to the Multihull 2016 Facebook page. They are from earlier in the day with more light. http://www.facebook.com/multihull2016

Guess NACRA liked the original AC45.

This indicates that the N17 was also designed by M&M.

Yep, M+M designed the platform...

Luiz

MM desgined the Infusion,F16,F20C and now the 17 but they did NOT designed the AC45, I had Mike Drummond from Oracle mailing me on that one corercting a false assumption I made, interview on the blog.

I was talking about the criss cross sticker job

Thanks!
This confirms the critics I read from another designer regarding the AC45 lines.

Talked to the guys who were sailing it yesterday. They were very happy with the performance. They were testing alongside a new infusion MKII, and said they had great pace, and the boat felt like a sportscar next to a truck! They will hopefully be sailing again today, and I hope to get some more feedback. Looks promising so far.

There's a fair amount of chatter regarding the "outdated and not modern anymore" F18 class. Why?
- Because it doesn't have curved boards - which will add significantly to the cost and increase the reliance on equipment for speed.
- Because it doesn't have a carbon mast - which will add significantly to the cost and increase the reliance on equipment for speed.
- Because min weight it too high - which means the boats are bullet proof and last a very long time.

Accessibility, performance and reward for skill over equipment - F18 still offers the best racing of any off the beach boat, monohulls included. The formula is very good and the only thing to be achieve by "modernising" the class rules it to increase the price for no real benefit to the sailor - it will only make the performance gap larger between those who can afford carbon, curved boards and those that can't.

H16's are so popular because their racing is so good. F18's are popular for the exact same reason. Show some respect to the successful classes and what they've achieved for multihull sailing. If you want the fastest or "most modern" go get yourself a 18HT (they're everywhere right???) or an A-class and blow your cash is 6 months.

N17 does look good as a one design. I can't see why'd they'd be interested in starting a formula class for it.

Who know's how much the 17's going cost??????????? My guess is US$32-$35k.

For years now, the room for developement in the F18 rule has meant that each new generation of F18 designs has got faster and faster until they outperform supposedly faster boats like iF20s and Tornados.
The time has now come when the F18 rule is holding their developement back when compared to newer designs like this N17. This isn't a problem, its just that we need to accept that F18s aren't going to be getting so far up in the long distance races any more.
The F18 rule works - its the best racing across the world.

"This Nacra 17 will have great performance, significantly better than an F18 or F16 and probably better than a Tornado in most conditions." from the catsailingnews blog


What I find interesting is that the results of this regatta seem to confirm the Texelrating for the curved foil full carbon Nacra 20 in relation to the F16's (and F18's) with aluminium masts.

Honestly, Xander Pols is certainly no a slough and neither is Greg/Christa or several of the other crews sailing.

Of course this regatta provides incidental evidence at best but it doesn't appear that the curved foils or indeed all the carbon in the world is giving the Nacra 20 speed potential beyond what is predicted by Texel on weight, length, rig type and sail area alone. Or at least not a difference that is statistically obvious.

Therefor I doubt whether the new Nacra 17 will deliver significantly better performance because of its specs alone (as taken from various blogs). Contrary to the latest marketing. Indeed, Texel prediction has the new N17 at a rating of 101 whereas the F18's are at 100 and the F16's are at 102. Never mind the Tornado at 94.

Clearly a 2 point difference between the F18's and F16's means bugger all on the water if we look at the (elapsed) results. So how significant will a single point in performance be especially when the O-class will race SMOD anyway ?

I wonder.

Because that is how the physchy of modern man is, we expect development and gain in everything we do. Car manufacturers exploit this mercilessly and are very successful because of it.

As much as I admire the F18 class, if a better class emerges that will carry the same crew, is more modern, less weight, starts winning races and pushed by the major manufacturers ( particulalry if it was selected as the Olympic boat ) then it will be only a matter of time before the F18's are losing cliental to both the F16's and the new F17.5's

Went for a sail today on NED 20, Infusion MKII. The new Nacra 17 was out testing and getting some photos in a nice SW around 13-15 knts. At least from what I saw today, the boat is a rocket. Upwind the boat seemed as high and slightly faster, downwind it looked to be flying. We saw one big porpoise event, the crew seemed to be all smiles back at the club. I am impressed.

More photos taken today..
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...5093.215545338553&type=1&theater

Nice picts. thanks for sharing!

One question; I see they have the windward board way up, going upwind.

Is this 'normal' when going upwind on a cat with curved daggers? Or were they just playing with it, to see what would happen, etc.?

It would suck for the crew to have to pull up one board, and push the other one down, on every tack!

JW? Where's the Crew Contract? I'm pretty sure pulling/pushing boards on every tack isn't in there! We're going to need some "Overtime" pay if that's going to be the new norm. I say we make the skipper snuff the spinny, just to get even.

Having been an early adopter F18 sailor...let's not forget that sail development played a large role early on with the performance increase of the F18. The platforms evolve regularly but I think the biggest performance gains on the F18 from beginning to now are simply mast and sail configurations.

You forgot to mention the single most important factor...cost.

Glad to hear the A class isn't a successful class.

Sorry, I thought you were from the US!!!

And...what about that windward board up? Is that 'normal' going upwind on a curved board cat?

Hey A cat guys, do you sail upwind like that?

I can't tell if it's the photo angle, the graphics, or the design. But it looks like they pushed the rocker way forward on the boat.

All the pictures of the A's I've seen have them leaving both boards in the water most of the time, too much work for the crew otherwise.

As to the F17/F20c, I'm pretty sure things are still getting dialed in. IMO, never sailing one of these boat before, but I'm sure those huge boards on the F17 provide more lift going upwind in light-moderate chop than what you reall need. Excess lift=excess drag.

Jesus. They have the boat sitting on sand. My blood curdles seeing that.

It is best to lift the windward board as you really don't want to lift that hull more than needed. Hey we better go out on the trap to keep the hull down, why don't you just lift the board duh. It is a pain to lift the boards on every tack.

Well here's the thing...if the purpose of the curved daggers is "Lift", wouldn't it be better, lift wise, to sail the boat 'flatter' with both (curved, lifting) boards full down? ie. try to foil it up wind on two boards (hulls), vs. one board, on one hull only?

Of course if you did sail it flat and up in the air on two boards, I'm guessing you'd also have a lot of side slip, and since getting upwind to A mark is the priority, over outright speed, I guess you'd want to sail it on one hull upwind.

The boat would sail flatter with the windward boat up because the wind is already lifting the windward hull and it does not need any more help. The leeward hull is being pushed down in the water and needs the lift. The boat is not a foiling boat as it does not have any built in control to keep it level.

Unlike curved foils in tris, curved foils in cats are in their early development stage. A few years will pass before we know how to best use them in each point of sail, even more to understand why.
Sails are less complex and it always takes years to develop the best setup for a given class.

It is a beach catamaran....if you look closely though it is sitting on pads, doubt it ever touched the sand.

Looks like its sitting on sand to me?




Sexy rudder stocks. Glad to see they're getting away from the cam lock hold downs.

Oh booo frigging hooo

Its a beach cat. If it can't take a little sand then it needs to HTFU.

It's a NACRA. It OOZES HTFU! That's why they are always a step ahead!!! You guys must have not gotten the memo that was posted years ago....

Your blood will be thoroughly curdled after the Great Texas. You're in for a rude awakening.

Karl's doing the Great Texas? On what boat?

Maybe next year on the Wiper. I'm going to float around in a RIB with Jeremy possibly this year so he can be picture man.


The perverse side of me wants to hit the beach at full tilt with the kite up. Kinda like doing demolition, there's something strangely erotic about smashing a toilet with a sledge hammer. The smart side of me doesn't like wet sanding and polishing an expensive toy for no reason

but there's your reason!

I look at the N17 and think to myself, that is a pretty hot looking boat. Would love to have a sail on one.

I look at the F18 class and think to myself, this is a class I would want to be involved in.

BTW, if it was a choice between an N17 and a T, then it would be a T. An N20C might be a different story though.

"The perverse side of me wants to hit the beach at full tilt with the kite up"


Done that already, boat can take it.

However, it is smarter to pull all your boards up before doing so, I was unlucky and my windward board slided down on me.

Even so I was without damage except for a small gap in my daggerboard skirt. This was on my homebuild boat and boy does Phill Brander build quality stuff.

You' ll be surprised how well a beachcat can withstand regular contact with the beach.

I have some other thoughts on the subject actually.


When I look at the new N17 and some of the specs that are floating around on the various blogs, I think " it is basically a carbon masted F16 with curved foils"

The hullshape is a scaled copy of the nacra F16, that is very clear if you look past the distracting paint job.

The length, according Mischa de Munk who is there is exactly 17 feet instead of 17.6. If so then it is 5.18 meters against 5.0 meters of the F16. Or indeed only 7 inches longer. Indeed a length difference of a wooping 4%, you'd actually have to put the boats side by side to see the difference in length. Note that all of nacra's earlier 17 footers were all 5.25 mtr long = 17 foot 3 inches. It seems weird to go for 17.6 or 17 foot 7 inches now. Why not go for the full 18 foot and milk the marketing predjudice that is related to these numbers ?

I gether it is 2.6 meters wide against the 2.5 of the F16's. Again a difference of 4 inches and 4%.

Its mansail is 16 square meters in surface area against 15 sq. mr. for the F16. 7% difference.

The mast doens't appear to be much taller then the F16's but no hard data is available on that. I guess the mainsail luff is about 8.75 mtr on a 9.25 mtr mast (based on predecessors) so I can put a Texel rating to the boat. Compare this to 8,5 mtr by 8.5 mtr for the F16's. Less then 3%.

The overall weight is rumoured to be about 130 kg which is heavier then even the alu masted Viper despite the use of a carbon mast and a possible 5kg reduction because of it. Of course the F16 class allows caron masts to those who want one. So when pushed the viper will grow one very quickly. 130/107 = 21% difference, none in relation to Viper and indeed (130+135)/(107+135)= 9.5 % difference regarding combined overall weight, no difference with the Viper.

Its texelrating on these specs will be 101 whereas F18's is 100 and F16's at 102 with the Viper at 104. No big differences there, all less then 3% which is bugger all on the water as the Viper is proving.


It seems to me that the new nacra 17 is basically a Viper / F16 with enough of the specs slighly altered to be a totally separate class of boat but without being in a different class of performance.

That in it self is a good move by nacra. It has all the benefits of the F18 / F16 line of boats without interfering with either class.

However I don't expect it to be a game changer in the way of performance. I expect it to adhere to the Texelrating just as much as the Nacra 20 carbon appears to be doing despite its curved foils. That boat was launched in 2010 so did have sufficient time to get dialed in.

So if the new nacra 17 is to be selected then it should be for its non-interference, not for its hyped quantum leap forwards in design or performance. The data doesn't seem to support such claims at all. That is my point.

Wouter

I helped carry it from the trailer to beach, and beach to water... it didn't touch sand

I had a chat with Gunnar Larsen prior to him leaving for Thai Regatta and following the announcement of Nacras Olympic evaluation entries. I asked what spec he had available for the new 17ft Nacra 17. He immediately corrected me and stated that it was in fact 17.5ft long and is a scaled down F20 Carbon rather than a stretched 16 or shrunk Infusion with curved boards. I did ask him beam width and I believe he stated it is 2.6m. He described the hull construction as being glass,epoxy and carbon with a projected weight of 130kg. When I asked about sail area he said the main was a little less than the F18 (16.3m2), but didn't have the figures with him for the jib and spinnaker sizes. As I mentioned all this data came from a very brief conversation whilst he was waiting to board a flight to Thailand so apologies if it turns out there are any errors in these spec details.

I do disagree with your thoughts on whether a curved foil boat is a game changer with respect to performance. Having attended the Weston Cat Open in the UK at the end of 2011 and seen the F20 C (sailed by Peter Vink) racing against the best of the UK F18 and Tornado fleets, as well as Gunnar on an Infusion, it is clearly a gamechanger. In a number of the races (which were sailed in force 3 to 5, sometimes gusting more) it sailed of into the distance lapping the Tornados and many of the F18 fleet. What I would say is that the Texel Rating System as well as SCHRS rating system used in the UK clearly reflects accurately the comparative performance of the latest catamaran designs although does put older designs at a disadvantage (this is not a surprise though as I think we can all agree that is just a reflection of the advances and innovations that are occurring in modern catamaran design as can be seen in the evolution that has happened within the F18 class). Many would agree that the A class is probably at the forefront of catamaran development and performance and it is clear that curved foils with related hull designs is the direction this fleet is going in at this time. I do feel that curved boats are only going to increase in performance over the next few years as sailing techniques develop to get the most out of the boards. Time will tell if curved boards remain in the domain of development classes, like the A class, and smod's or whether a multi manufacturer box rule class with curved boards comes into existence. Please remember this is my opinion based on my observations (and remember that opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one and they all smell apart from your own!!!!) and is not intended to offend anyone, but only to stimulate constructive and thoughtful discussion!

Indeed, I too am trying to make sense in what is still a bit of a chaotic situation. The various blogs en press releases seem to conflict sometimes. I just picked what seemed most likely at this moment.

With respect to game changing, whether the nacra 20 c. Is a game changer in elapsed time or not is largely meaningless with respect to curved foils. Right now it does appear that the clear performance of the nacra 20 c. is far more the result of typical specs like sail area hull length etc. then the curved foils. Otherwise the texelrating wouldn't be doing a good job of scoring the fleet, as evidenced again by the Thai regatta corrected results.

For those readers who don't know the texelrating system will give exactly the same rating to a boat with curved foils as one with straight foils. As such a curved platform should outperform its rating if indeed it these improve overall performance relative to old school straight boards.

Another point to take into consideration is the claim that the nacra 20c uses ASYMMETRICAL curved boards whereas other makes like F18 and F16 still use symmetrical boards. If so that will explain the length of these boards and the need to each time raise the windward one. It is doubtful whether the speed gain will offset the time spend working the boards in a crowded fleet race. Of course these things change in a distance race.

Indeed, all to advance an enjoyable discussion.

I do agree that the F20 C's performance is about the whole rather than an individual aspect of the design, but as far as I am aware that initial board development came first and the rig and hull shape design followed to work in unison with the boards.

I heard the foils on the f20c in the gt300 last year where a hindrance and that the boat seemed slow because of the curved foils.

this makes me wonder if the curved foils have a specific range where they work and other wind ranges where they do not.

The F20 C's boards are symmetrical NOT asymmetrical as some people claim.....I will have a chat with Gunnar Larsen and Peter Vink when they return from Thailand next week about the full reasoning for lifting of the boards upwind (particularly the windward board) and will post their response here..

The only reason there were slow is because we broke both foils and the boat took on water. I was pretty mad at Nacra after finding out the boards we had were some of the first ones that I think had problems. Our team spent a lot of money and time off work to do the race and Nacra let us down.

Then I (and we all) stand corrected on that point (asymmetrical foils).

Mind you, all the large ocean going (French) tri's use assymmetrical (curved) foils. Many like to point at those as proof of feasibility.

Wouter

They also have more hands on deck.

and much less tack and gybes per hour !

There is a 12ft wide 3 sail M20(has an F20 C carbon mast) in the UK that has just had a special set of asymmetrical curved boards built and fitted.....it will be interesting to see how it performs this coming season...

Also I have just checked on the Nacra Sailing website and there is a trim sheet for the F20 C there that is available for download that describes the different positions to set the boards at depending on wind speed both upwind and downwind. Unfortunately it is took big a file, once converted to PDF, to attach to this thread. So please see Nacra F20 C trimsheet download

What's it going to cost to replace a curved dagger, vs. a straight board? Sooner or later, you are going to break one.

And if you are doing a distance type race (like the one mentioned above), and break all the curved boards anyone has on the beach, can you, in pinch, substitute a straight board as a spare? Or will it not fit into both hull slots?

The reality is, we all have to pay for our addictions, the higher the price, the fewer can play. I realise this F17 is aimed at the Olympics, that's good, let them buy it, I can't afford a(nother) $20,000 toy.

If the rest of the classes are going the direction of curved boards,...well...what's that going to cost to replace when I break one? Or do they cost about the same as a straight board?

Definitely not the same price between the two. Picture over $2k for a board...maybe more.

That has been discussed before. In comparison with very high end, all carbon, long straight boards as now being used in the F18 fleet, the curved boards aren't THAT much more, perhaps a few hundred per board.

Price for long boards: http://www.reverie.ltd.uk/product_list.php?group=M%20FOIL

Long board=$1300/board, last F20c foil price I heard was ~$1800/board. Both prices are likely wrong and subject to change.

I was quoted $1300 per board for the F20C, IIRC

Today's price is $1,675 USD per board

So basically 30% more expensive then long straight boards and above 1500 bucks a pop.

Go figure that I paid 400 bucks for a PAIR of Taipan 4.9 boards. Although with an aspect ratio of 2.5 these may not be called long and narrow.

What would Viper daggerboard cost, does anyone know ?

I know that a N20 (not F20C) Daggerboard is now $800.

The RETAIL fro a Viper board is $783.01. The RETAIL for the new longer C2 board is $1,252.82. The price for the older C2 board (that some are using for the Viper) was about $950. As these get longer the price goes up fast. The price for a curved A Class board is about $950.

I predict a resurgence in the popularity of the H16!

Three fleets for different skill levels and plenty of beer.

I think I'll start leaving my boards in the box when I go out to practice!

Nearly $2K per board for a single Curved board? Wow.

I'm guessing the cost is that high due to the time required to build and a more difficult build process for a curved board?

How do they even do it? Do they use molds or some other technique?

Boards are made in a mold. Mold cost is easily $10k per half, probably more. As the boards get longer and/or curved, you need more materials to get the strength up. It also takes longer to build the board. I'd estimate $300 in materials and $900 in labor to build a curved F20c board. The rest of the money is covering R&D, mold cost, and warranty.

In either case. Good god.

I paid about that for my first H16

Take care of them boards!!

You know... this is is just an asinine and ignorant statement. You demonstrate a fundamental lack of respect towards the sailors in other classes.

Do you really think that the Hobie 16 sailors are less accomplished then the F18 sailors or F16 sailors.

At the very least... I would take the seamanship skills of someone racing a Hobie 16 for 30 years over the seamanship of a new sailor with an F18!

This attitude is not unique to you...
If you don't respect your competitors... you don't need to show up and play. (gee... is turnout a problem in your part of the world???)
So... whether it's a one design regatta where most of the sailors are the back of the fleet, a local handicap regatta with Hobie 16's to Nacra F20cs, or the Area US Sailing championship qualifiers.... when you don't respect ALL of the competitors in the game... there is not much reason to spend your time and money.

Fact of life... good sailors are good sailors... they race in all different classes... disrespecting them (Three fleets for different skill levels) diminishes the racing community.

Easy there sparky,

In Pete's defense, I think he was saying that the H16 has three different fleet "levels", such as gold silver bronze, A, B, C, etc... for differing skill levels amongst the overall fleet.

I don't think he was saying that H16 sailors suck. I don't think anyone on this board would think that.

Mark I agree with Tad I think you misread Pete's post too.

it,s not the sailors that suck.........(sorry H16 fans. to easy)

Don't be hatin because you've been schooled while sailing one. It is a poor carpenter who blames his tools.

Imo, the "C", "B", and "A" fleets made Hobie a household word. A brilliant bit of marketing. The beer didn't hurt either.

Just mention the H16 and someone somewhere starts beating a shield!

Now get back to daggerboard wars... it was really stimulating zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Well, I would admit that foiling made the moths faster boats.

HEY! Don't knock it till you try it. I've been doing it for years.

I would also like to add its the poor carpenter who can't afford decent tools. getting my coat....

And you need four mold halves where-as a port and starboard straight boards can be made from the same two mold halves.

This is the funny part: "Come on out anyway and bring the boat, I have a feeling there might be some consolidation going on tomorrow. Based on the forecast it looks like a H16 will be the weapon of choice."

The boat is STILL a winner in the right conditions.

Yeah, and a loser in most other conditions

Can we please get beyond the H16 now ?

It isn't the Nacra 17 thread for nothing.

wouter

Woot, you're bashing my first love. Shame on you.

But yes, back to the N17 by all means.

I would buy a Hobie 16 Tatoo, over a H-16 w/spin. (assuming similar price range)
http://www.catsailor.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=234040#Post234040
-
http://www.hobie-cat.net/hobie-cat/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=414%3Ahobietatoo-uk&catid=79%3Acatamarans&Itemid=576&lang=en
-

You only need 2 mold halves. If you have a tapered tip you make the mold that much longer, put the tip on both ends , and cut off the "top" of opposing boards.Even works for asym. 1 mold/ 2 halves. If you're doing some kind of weird variable twist/ curve then you might need 4 halves.

hmmmm...right you are.

For the F20c, there is a definite "twist" to the boards. It's not a straight curve...

Intentional?

Yes its definitely intentional.

That's why I mentioned it. Somebody was trying that on an A also.
I also have a set of "curved" Nacra/Inter 20 boards that were most likely the result of a sailbox autoclave.

Not all curved foils were born equal.

Symetrical section curved foils with different angles of incidence along their span on the F20C, compared to asymetrical section curved foils with fixed angle of incidence along their span on the french maxitris.

It will take a while to fine tune curved foils in cats. And never forget the "S" foils that were barely tested.

Source? Some say the foil is symmetric, some say asymmetric on the F20c. What is on the new F17?

You can get by with 2 mold halves if twist is 0. Otherwise, forget about it. Doubt they are doing that in a production environment anyway, I am sure there are 4 mold halves at an easy $40k for the set.

If you have twist, which is one method of getting elliptical lift distribution, things get complicated really fast. For starters, simply modelling the foil in CAD becomes a nightmare-try 100+ hours of CAD work for the plug and then another 40 or so hours for the molds themselves.

I also realized the broken Nacra foils I own have Rohacell or similar high density foam cores. If the curved boards are similar, you would need to machine this core prior to putting it in the molds. That's probably $200 worth of machine time per core if you own the machine.

One way to look at this is by cost, and surely a foil that costs 30% more isn't going to make your boat 30% faster, hence its not worth it. IMO, $1300 is already a lot of money for a daggerboard, why not just pay the extra $400/board for a curved foil? Its a 3% increase in cost on a brand new F18, for example.

I think the Nacra curved foils actually have rib/spar construction inside.

So far its just about becoming the olympic class. There is no plan on selling yet..

A quote Given to me when asking about the boat pricing and specs.

That's what I heard in Thailand as well. They are not currently setup for production as far as tooling, etc. The reactions to the boat were very positive in Thailand, but the trials will be a whole different ballgame!

However, part of the Evaluation Criteria is that it "be equipment that avoids unnecessary or excessive costs." How is the committee supposed to evaluate that if a price hasn't even been established for the boat?

Nacra isn't without a business plan, I fully expect that they do have some idea about how much the boat will cost to produce. Chances are that, if they are being cagey about how much the boat will cost retail, it is because they have two different prices in mind depending on whether or not the committee chooses the boat.

Why do you think they will put the boat into production if it is not selected for the mixed multihull?

Seems to me... they would rather mine the F16/104 market in the EU with their new F16 boat before trying to jump start a new class which would attempt to draw sailors from F18's and F16's. By all accounts, this is a two person boat so the swiss army knife marketing of the F16 is missing.

I don't think we know how the ISAF selection committee will value all of the factors beyond sailing performance on the water. The Nacra 17 aims for something a bit different then an F16 flavor or a Hobie 16 with spin.

I would love to know if they got the boat in the hands of some of the Thai woman sailors and what feedback those ladies provided. They are part of the future of the sport!

Fat old guys are not wanted in the Olympics.

I had some moree time thinking about this entry to the trails and it seems to me that the new nacra 17 is the M20 of yesteryear in many respects.

It may well be all that a modern cat may be but it doesn't really seem to check the boxes that seems equally important for selection next to performance. Afterall, it is a completely new design, without a class or much development (ironing out teething problems) and it asks alot of investment for some performance and styling points. I was taken a little a back about the quotes for the very high aspect curved foils. That is definately not something the selection committee will view kindly as it goes directly against the wishes to grow participation in developping nations (= south america, asia and SOME african nations like Nigeria).

This new design is largely surrounded by unknowns, such as class and the probability that it ever will be accepted by mainstraim sailing. The word is that the market for the Nacra 20 carbon is done, all who want one have bought one and the "class" has stopped growing. Arguably it is a rare sight even in the big sailing nations. Or at least much more so then the other candidates with the exception of the Torrnado and Spitfire. I doubt the selection committee is going to look favourably upon a candidate of the same pedigree.

With respect to its design. The nacra 17 also doesn't appears to cater much for the mixed crews and light t medium weights of non-western sailors. The rumour has it that it is adorned with a 16 sq. mtr. Sail on what I expect is a slighly taller mast then the F16's. But even if it has a 8,5 mtr mast like the 16's then it still favours crews that are roughly 10 kg's more then a 135 kg on the Viper. The F16' s have the smallest sails of all the entries whereas the nacra 17 comes 3rd smallest after the Tornado and Tiger.

Now this is not in any way an argument for the 16's (eitherh Hobie 16 or F16) but it does show that the nacra 17 is not checking several important boxes in favour for some aspects that could well be pretty meaningless in these trails. So what if it is 5% faster then a Tiger (Which I think is doubtful). This is all but negligiable in a SMOD Olympic race. What does it really mean to the viewers that it has curved foils ? It is not that sailors of O-quality are going to let the boat point its bows to the sky while racing as that is slow and risks venting the foils. I also wonder if the crews will do much lifting and dropping of foils in a short tight fleet race as a few seconds lost will costs large stretches on the water if the other crew who keeps both foils down has the spi drawing sooners.

So I 've come to the conclusion that the curved foils are pretty meaningless for the big O cat. Hell, the Tornado still has low aspect centre boards and no-one complaints about those !

No i think the biggest selling point of the nacra 17 is that it will not interfere with any of the existing classes. Which is a mixed bag in my view as this also means that currently it has no support network or beginnings of an international class from which to start. Apart from that , why should ISAF, IOC or indeed the Olympics care about interference with other classes ?

Non-interference is reasoning that holds water from our perspective as recreational cat sailors but it doesn't from the perspective of the parties at the trails or involved in the big O circus. As such I don't think it will play any significant role in the selection.

At this time I truly believe the race is between the Hobie 16's and the F16's (nacra and AHPC).

The Tornado is out because of its history/reputation and other factors like cost, class size and the fact it simply doesn't suit the targeted crews as well as the alternatives.

The Spitfire is out not in any way because of its design or performance but because Sirena is too small a builder (network) and the class has not sufficient penetration international,y compaired to the alternatives.

Hobie Tiger is likely out because it doesn't suit the targeted crews well enough although I do see it as an entry that may throw a curveball. It does check many of the other boxes. However it is also between everything. It is not as as modern as the F16's neither as common as the H16's. It is more expensive then both others and significantly heavier and less optimal for the target sailors. Basically I see it as a less the optimal compromise under the specs of this Olympic selection criteria but one does well to never underestimate Hobie corp.

Rumour has it that the 16's are the likely favourites and I'm beginning to understand why.

Some think it is a shoe in for the Hobie 16 because of low costs but interestingly enough a bare Hobie 16 race EXCLUDING spi is 12.500 euro's in Europe and a spi kit for it does do 2000 Euro's. F16's are race ready fully equipped at 16.000 euro's and put Hobie 16 build quality to shame.

Basically one can get 9 F16's for the cost of 10 Hobie 16's. Doesn' appear to be much of a discriminator between these two boats. Certainly not for Europeans and all builders are doing production in thailand or whatever already. Besides, doing a batch of 50-80 F16's as a single production run to kick start all olympic hopefuls will drop costs as well.

So in my opinion it comes down how heavy the availabilith of the Hobie 16 is weighted in. It is as common as mud out there and the F16's aren't. On the other hand the performance, build quality and style of the F16's are well beyond the Hobie 16 with spi. I feel it will come down as a toss-upp between these factors with the nacra 17 a bit too far out on both key aspects and the Tiger as the potential curveball.


If I were Hobie then I would start drawing up plans for a Hobie F16 and not let nacra and AHPC corner the market if an F16 were to be chosen.

Just my thoughts

Or, Hobie might take the opinion that F16 will be screwed if one model gets 'O' selection - and stay well away!

According to the folks I talked to in Thailand, the 17 was designed for a combined crew weight of 130 kg. They felt the 16s were a little too underpowered for olympic level competition, and that the 17 fit the specs much more closely. Not sure why lifting the foils would be a problem on the 17- you raise the foils on a 16 or 18 at the windward mark anyway, not much of a difference.

As for the 16s, I agree they are likely favorites. However, I don't see why Hobie would design an F16- why would you train on a Hobie F16 when the Olympics are OD in a Nacra or Viper?

Btw the market for the 20c is not done. The price point is just a bit to high for the people who want into the class.

Dont forget that those who are to decide on this are mostly non-multihull sailors. H16 it is!

Video of the boat being sailed in Pattaya on the Thursday rest day. We tried to catch it on an Infusion... no way

http://youtu.be/gaSIIiBsfJM

Interestingly enough the F16's were designed for 142 kg crewweight. I know because I was the one who proposed the class rules in cooperation with Phill and Kirt.

I was the one who proposed to follow what Bethwaite calls the cube-square law. Or at least I learned later that he had given it that name. I arrived at this law myself because I was looking to use F18 hull development to kick start the the class what would later be called the F16's. I was looking to combine the benefits of the AHPC Taipan with the class structure of the F18's and the possibility of viable singlehanding with the same platform.

I like to play with calculators and punched in the scaling factor that was needed to scale down a F18 hull to F16 length and started playing with it. The Taipan was 4.95 mtr long but I rounded that off to 5.0 mtr. F18's are max 5.52 mtr long.

5.00/5.52 = 0,905797

I wanted this scaled hull to sit at the same waterline as the F18 hull and so I calculated its new displacement where I knew that 155 kg was considered ideal F18 weight at the time.

(0.905797)^3 * (180+155) = 248,96 kg or indeed 249 kg.

At the time the Taipan was 102 kg and my own spinnaker kit weighted just under 5 kg. This lead to the following calculated ideal crewweight for the new F16.

249 - 107 kg = 142 kg


Using the same ratio to determine equivalent mastheight and sailarea's would have produced the following measurements (followed by the measurements we settled on for the F16's)

Mainsail area 13.95 sq.mtr (15.0)
Masnsail luff 7.79 mtr (8.10)
Mast length 8.15 mtr (8.5)
Jib area 3.40 sq. mtr (3.70)

Of course the Taipan already had 14.58 sq.mtr mainsail with a 8.02 luff on a 8.47 mtr tall mast and an overlapping jib of 4.18 sq. Mtr. I wanted to grandfather this boat so I maxed the specs to at least enclose the Taipan. I also wanted a selftacking jib so I ran the numbers on a jib size that would allow that.

Over time we tweaked the specs so that the 1-up and 2-up versions both had a rating equal to eachother and the F18's where I was happy to put some more power in the rig to cater a little bit for the heavier then 142 kg crews as indeed I too am a large male from north-west Europe weighting in at 85 kg.

Some more calcs showed that 2.5 mtr width (Taipan 2.35 mtr) would work best with the larger rig when looking at overall righting moment. Mind you the cube-square law pedicted equality at 147 kg and 2.5 mtr width when using the smaller rig. Basically by opting for the larger rig specs I overpowered the boat for a 147 kg crew by 112% in relation to a 155 kg crew on a F18. The new F16 rig would need a crew of 169 kg to establish parity with the F18 crew in the ratio tipping moment to righting moment. We could then have made the boat wider, but noticed that alot of nations limit maximum trailer width to 2.5 mtr and we really didn't want to go past the ratio of 2 between length to width for fear of loading the bows up too much. The italians wanted A-cat width of 2.34, the europeans at least 2.60 mtr and the aussies 2.5 mtr. A decision had to be made and politically the 2.5 mtr could be justified due to the legal implications of overstepping the max trailer width. So we settled at 2.5 mtr. accepted a boat that is a bit overpowered in the rough stuff.

In fact , I bought improved light air performance against having to depower a little earlier. additionally, some drag factors didn't scale down by 0.905797 so I needed some extra sailpower to correct for that.

With this in mind I find it a little bit peculiar that a F16 is said to be underpowered. It is in fact more powered up then the F18's and even more so with respect to the Tornado. In truth, it is one of the most powered up 2-up catamarans right after the F18HT for example. This is part of the reason why the initial F16's were easy to put nose down. I don 't recall anybody calling the F18's or Tornado's underpowered, so why this claim with respect to the F16's ?

I feel too many people look at the name F16 and feel that thus hull length number says all one needs to know about these designs.

Making the nacra 17 even more powered up doesn't appear to me as a sound decision. Let alone the fact whether this in in fact at all needed. Afterall, the nacra F16 crews have just found out that their sail cut is lacking power in relation to the Vipers. So they are not even getting the max out of the F16 specs currently.

Wouter

"However, I don't see why Hobie would design an F16- why would you train on a Hobie F16 when the Olympics are OD in a Nacra or Viper?"


Brand loyalty and because maybe one has a Hobie dealor that one prefers over the another brand dealor because of service etc.

Assuming that a Viper F16 or Nacra F16 is chosen then a Hobie F16 would be a pretty good training vehicle all the way till a truly serious campaign to be selected is undertaken.

Apart from that, Hobie needs to cover the bases at some point just as they did with the Tiger when the Hobie 18 based formula class was being superseaded by the F18's.

Hobie must take care to not end up with only the rare FX-one as their ticket in this segment of cat sailing.

Or at least that is what I'm opinioning.

For the 130 kg viper the overpoweredness is reduced by 4.8 % to about 107% overall. Therefor the viper will establish parity with the 155 kg F18 crew at 154,9 kg themselves.

Wouter

I meant no disrespect towards the F16s, they look like great boats, and they certainly are fast. My only point was that the folks at Nacra feel that the 17 more closely fits the criteria without impacting an existing class. I'm not trying to attack any other design, hope it doesn't come across that way.

Which one of you jackasses said Wouter's name 3 times?

No worries... I think you offered great information and a balanced point of view.

Clearly when the submissions for mixed multihull range from Hobie 16's with Spins to Tornados with every stop in between... The builders cannot say with any authority....
"we think the XXX fits the criteria the best" (only three of the builders agree on the same basic solution)

Who the hell knows... I certainly wish the ISAF had been clearer and ranked their priorities ... I don't get what the benefit of being so obtuse gets them.

Just great Tawd, thanks to that comment I just squirted beer through my nose.

At least you didn't waste it.

Of course Jeff, neither do I want to question preoples motives.

I was just playing around with some numbers and reasonings.

Now, I have to get back to the funny farm !

Wouter

I spoke to Peter Vink today to check what I already new and can confirm the F20 Carbon foils are symmetrical with a linear curve and NO twist. They have 2 main ribs with a number of stringers/spars combined with a foam core.

Really? No twist at all?

No twist until before you sail with them. The ones at the Great Texas looked pretty twisted to me.

The brand new ones I saw right out of the box looks like they had twist to them.

They certainly do have a twist.

No twist-confirmed by Peter Vink today......

I will ask Peter Vink to personally respond to this discussion......

Check your glasses...

All the UK boats have a linear curve with no twist-spoke to Peter Vink today who confirmed this...

I'm sorry, you can tell me all day long to check my eyes, but even after 5 retinal surgeries I was able to see that they had twist to them.

The hulls were still sitting in the shipping boxes.

Maybe the first ones that had the problems(per David Lennard- F-20c sailor) had twist and that was the problem. Mike Krantz said they had twist per post #243870 a couple pages back, and he's had to see a few. So maybe it's quality control instead of engineering genius.

Surely you jest! ;-)

Our boards definately don't have any twist. Notice how they lay on each other perfectly in the picture. The other F20C here had first gen boards (the fragile type) and they where also not twisted - we fit them in our trunks

Thank you Opher for confirming the facts about the boards...

WOW. Then the ones Mike and Dave had on THIER F20C definately had a twist to them, I saw it too. Conspiracy?

I took a look at a set of f20c foils that we have here in Pensacola. And the do NOT appear to have any twist in them. Maybe people are seeing twist due to an optical illusion? we have 2 sets and they don't have any twist.

Could it be that the twist develops over time? The stress on the boards is uneven after all.

If it's a built in twist, wouldn't the dagger slots have to have a little slop built in to accomodate that, when you raise and lower them?

OR...the dagger trunks would ALSO have to be built with a twist, and that would be a bee-och to do!

Dude ,It's a NACRA, slop comes standard.

NICE!!!!

Technically, "room for adjustment". As in, I had room to adjust my entire daggerboard trunk within my hull.

If it wasn't for that they wouldn't have been able to sell rubber squares and carpet at a premium price.