The Hobie i-cat pricing is known !

The Hobie i-cat pricing is known !

http://www.proust-sailing.com/polyester-55/4346-hobie-i-cat.html

It is quoted at 17.600 Euro's

When fitted with only a mainsail.

Wouter

Good luck to Hobie Cat.

Almost $25,000 US.... is that RIGHT?

No, but it's correct.

But that quote does include 19% Value Added Tax (VAT) as required in the Euro zone. I think the yanks have more like 0% to 10% VAT depending on which state you are from.

So above US$ 20.000 will still be right.

Note everybody that US$ 19.800 will get you a Falcon F16 sloop mode with spi (2-up) and a carbon mast.

Of course the Stealth F16 (carbon mast) will be LOTS cheaper then the Hobie icat when purchased by EU customers. Hell the i-cat quote will get you a Blade or Falcon F16 in 2-up mode with a carbon mast and a suit of landenberger sails.

Wouter

Stealths are now deliviered with Grant Piggot sails, as developed by Grant and I last year.


Does the I cat rate as an F16?

Whats the point of this thread?

Seems to me you guys are bashing Hobie Cat and promoting certain designs. This does nothing good to grow the sport. Hobie cat can charge as much as they feel for there boats, this is bad PR on behalf of the class.

Robi,

I don't see what's wrong comparing prices and specs of models. Hobie can charge what they want, we can determine they are clearly more expensive.

Simon,

The I cat is not F16 compliant. Mainsail is too big and the hull is too long as Wouter posted in another thread.

I wonder how much boats they will sell.

Gill

Anyone... like Wouter ...have any thoughts on how the iCat would compare to the US aluminum-masted F17? Is it more similar to the F17 than it is to the F16? It looks like a cool boat.

Hobie Europe is pretty secretive about the specs of the iCat. I simply don't know other then it will not be much different from the FX-one. We'll just have to wait for the Hobie to announce the final specs.

Wouter

Gilo, its not what you say, but how you say it.

If it really does weigh 220lbs, my guess is it will be substantially faster than the F17's once they've been dialed in.

If the final variation were to be F16 legal, I will be seriously considering this over the other F16's that I have looked at. I have not been on a Viper yet, but will be on one next week for a few days. I really like the shape of the FXone hull, I like the big beams, I don't like the weight of it.

Pardon my barging into your F16 forum, but I would like to add my opinion under this topic....


I for one would be considering the iCat if it were to be F16 compliant. The price isn't really that unreasonable if it is built to the same style and standard as the FX One was.

The FX was one of the best sailing and well made boats I have owned. The construction and detailed finnish is spot on. As with most Hobie products, I have been extreemly pleased with them.

The issue for me is I will NOT buy another boat that falls into a class that is lightly populated and not likely to grow to a sizeable fleet in the US. (ie the FX One) With the release of the iCat this seems to be a similar fate.

Even though the F16 is not very common in my area it does have a growth potential that is on the horizon.

I am sitting here with the money to purchase another single hand boat, waiting on Hobie to come to a decision and decide if the i Cat will become a F16 or not. If it is just a big secret, well maybe it is time to start leaking some details.

By next summer I will pop for a new Falcon or A-Cat if Hobie can't make the boat I want.

I have puchased two Tigers, an Fx One, some old Hobies and five of the plastic kayaks. So I am by no means an anti Hobie person. Well hell I am the Fleet 95 Commodore in Seattle.

But by not producing a boat that is claerly what I want and need. Well that will lead me down another path.

Mike Hensel
Fleet 95 Commodore
US Sailing Multi Hull Rep Area L

Mike and Karl,

Sometimes I wonder what could happen if people like you Mike would contact a senior Hobie representative and kindly but cleary inform them off the way "things" are when dealing with glass boats.

I imagine you to be a person of some cloud within Hobie circles (considering your background and volunteer roles).

Of course this is none of my business, but maybe "Hobie corp" needs a small nudge into the right direction from the guys (they respect) in the actual market place ? Who is to say that Hobie is not willing to be convinced of a certain implementation when enough potential clients tell them that that is what they actually want ? If there is a time to influence a decision then it surely is now, before the iCat design is cast into stone.

Because the iCat, as it appears to be now, really doesn't have much of a chance in the contempory beach cat scene.

Switching over in specs is really not a major operation. All components can simply be transferred after redoing the hull length, there is just so little difference between the two setups. Recutting the sail to a slightly smaller overall area is childs play. I mean, the FX-one and FX-extreme mast + mainsail were spot on F16 compliant and iCat mast is still F16 compliant as well !

Wouter

Mike: You have nothing to loose by forwarding your message to Hobie. Maybe Matt Bounds will listen to you?

If you've had an opportunity to sail any of the F16s, you can see that the popularity will only increase. It's a great platform.

All the best.

This is the F16 forum. The point is that Hobie has elected to produce a boat that is extremely close but not F16 compliant.

Price has nothing to do with it. Companies will charge what it costs them to produce the boats they build. Material, labor, shop overhead, tooling etc.

Scooby will probably know, but I would beleive a 220 lb 17' boat is not 104 either. They obviously had some identified market in mind with the boat.

As pointed out Hobie ahs a huge vested interest in the F18. That model built upon following some formula and growing it. Why they elected to follow such a different path with the i baffles me. The only reason I can I can think of is that someone in their management feels the F16 concept over laps too closely with their existing F18 lines.

I know of a few people who would flop classes, but I see the 2 classes as more complimetary to eachother than adversary. Then again I do not see or know the French market and they have been pretty suscessful in the past.

Depends on all the factors what the boat rates. You need to have the foll set to work out if it rates 104 or not.

I've no idea what the 104 constraints are on width / length. You could get an A class to rate 104 if you added enough lead, but would it fit the F104 rules, no idea.

Ohh,

To anyone who may take a shot at contacting Hobie about this situation.

The F16 class holds an agreement with Goodall Yacht Sails that allows any F16 builder to use and buy the lightweight aluminium Superwing mast at the extrusion cost price !

In fact, the parties falling under this agreement have even run their own orders of these masts with the consent of Goodall Yacht sails. The superwing mast is basically the F16 equivalent to the Capricorn and Infusion wingmasts. And the attractiveness of this deal is the main reason why all aluminium F16 masts are this superwing section (we are almost OD in that respect)

Hobie can indeed make use of the same agreement if they produce a F16. That could easily chop off 2500 Euro's of the retail price by going aluminium. No need for sail development either as they can pick whatever sail design they want from Ullman, Grant Piggot, Glaser, Landenberger or Goodall himself and be very competitive in open class racing.

Informing a senior Hobie representative of this class deal may be valuable to both us and them.

Wouter

The 104 "class" doesn't have a class association, so far it's one guy making a lot of noise on his blog and on the french cat mailing list. The FFV (French sailing federation) refused to recognize the class due to the absence of an association representative of the owners.

In some races the race officers have been nice enough to extract a 104 results out of the handicap results, pompously presented as 'official' results on the aforementioned blog.

At one point he tried to start a set of rules, but this was rapidly removed as it prevented a lot of boat to qualify (restriction on length, width, weight, materials for hulls and spars, material for appendages...).

So the definition of the class 104 is that there is no class 104. There is just a bunch of people sailing cats with a SCHRS between 1.045 and 1.035 deciding to measure each other in real time. That's it. So you can take a A class, replace the daggerboard tips with enough lead to make it rate 1.035, put a 25kgs jockey on it and go win all 104 challenges...

I'm afraid that suggestions would fall on deaf ears. Worth a shot I guess though.

Myabe I am understanding you the wrong way, but are you saying the Capricorns and the Infusions mast are the same extrusion used on the F16s? If so that is far from true. If not, then I misunderstood your statement and I apologize.

The superwing section, is I believe a lighter version of the mast used on the Cap in Inf.

The superwing mast section was designed and first extruded back in 1987 (yes over 20 years ago). And it was inpired by the alu wing masts that were introduced to the A-cats by Lalo Petrucci somewhere during the 80's. This superwing was fitted to the Taipan 4.9 which was launched in 1988.

The Taipan 5.7 followed later with a new larger section and the Capricorn mast was initially based on this Taipan 5.7 mast. Later (but before full launch) the capricorn mast was redesigned but it shared the main features of the Taipan 4.9 and 5.7 masts. The Capricorn initiated the introduction of wingmasts into the F18 class and the Nacra Infusion mast followed several years later. Again, it was redesigned but using the same key features nevertheless.

So basically the Superwing mast as used by the F16's was the first use of a wingmast outside of the A-cat class and it spawned a trend that is expanding to this day with the latest iterations being the Capricorn masts and the Infusion masts.

The A-cats are still using the wing mast design but are using carbon cloth to build them. Different material, but sharing the same basic features. And these features are significantly different from any mast Hobie cat has been using over the years with the exception of the new iCat mast, that is almost certainly a carbon wingmast much like the A's.

That is what I was trying to hint at in only a few sentences. And I tried to imply that the iCat will also be an improved design with the aluminium superwing mast at 2500 Euro less cost per boat. But of course it needs to adhere to F16 specs before Hobie can invoke the class deal for them.

Wouter

Well, at least we will have done everything in our power to make them understand. And if a positive response remains illusive then we'll welcome you guys warmly to the F16 class.

I mean part of the reason it was formed was that some sailors got really fed up with paying top prices for (sometimes outdated) products that really didn't fit the bill.

We thought a better mouse trap was possible and took the plunch in proving it instead of just complaining about it.

In fact, we too (the current F16 owners) took our money elsewhere after having surveyed the product lines of the big builders and still come up wanting.

Maybe we should all realize that the market share that was lost by the big boys to the F16 class (a bunch of shoe-string amateurs) is now running in excess of 3 million dollars ! Any marketing director that doesn't take this VERY seriously is failing in his job (and taking his company with it).

Therefore, I think the proof is now in (after overcoming gigantous odds not in our favour) and maybe a well worded "wake-up !/last warning" is warrented. It will at least be the honourable thing to do before leaving "the family".

Wouter

Interesting pitch to bring Hobie on board, it would seem a no brainer to me that Hobie should enter the F16 market as after all the Hobie 16's are now boat park antiques and Hobie has no natural sucessor even after all these years to compete with the Nacra boats which have a couple around 16feet. Also the F16 is a growing market which naturally fits in with the F18 market, big boys for the F18, light weight crews for the F16 all on the same handicap.It would matter little to Hobie financially if they sold a F16 or a F18, the profit margin would be similar.

But and here is the but, from a personal view, I'm not sure I want Hobie to come along and play for a number of reasons. Principally at the moment the F16's are a very social, fun, good times for all class. Go to an F18 event and it is very competative, with hired jocks fuelled up by " I must win to maintain my job " and a " its not my boat, I don't care attitude as I'll always be given another one".

Also if Hobie came along to play, would we see the huge development we are seeing in the boats at the moment by the small builders, after all Hobie has to maintain a design for a good few years as its clients would not be pleased to find the boats are continually needing upgrading to the latest trend to be at the top of the fleet. Mind you in looking at the existing F16 fleet which has huge variation in design and innovation, the good skippers still win. maybe the F16 box rule equals things out better than they first could have hoped for.

But like all things in sailing, if it means more bums out on the water then lets get the Hobie corp on side. That means every Hobie owner should get out there and hassle there nearest agent for when the Hobie F16 is going to be launched.

But just how much demand is there for F16? Are there any figures?
At my club there are only 1 or 2 F16s out of 500 cats.
There is also a lot of overlap between F16 and F18, and it seems to be only getting bigger
as I think we can all agree that the F16s are getting "fatter" with every design iteration.
When you see that 140kg teams can be very competitive on the F18 one has to ask the question.

IMHO the FX-One never took of as a serious (racing) class but not because there was anything wrong
with the product, but because the sailors couldnt be bothered to go to regattas.
This "doomed" the FX-One to a life of wednesday-night club racing with some clubs having as much as 5 or 10+ boats.

I tend to agree with you on this one Wayne. I think Hobie might have overlooked the virtues of the F16 market but they have been successfully producing and selling beach Cats for quite some time now. To my mind I don't think any of the three large manufacturers can afford to build F16's to a cost effective min weight. However, the Viper is starting to gain momentum in the US and AUS and some good results this year could prove very interesting. Maybe, just maybe, Hobie might have a change of heart and possibly NACRA might be interested if it's proven that approx 20kgs additional platform weight doesn't compromise performance and results.
However, having the big guns play in our pond is like a double edged sword as you say. We'll just have to see how things pan out. At the end of the day not many Cats can give the all round enjoyment of a F16 so I can't see me jumping ship for a long time.

Tony,

The number of boats sold in the F16 class is closing in on 200. For some reason the class is stuck in first gear in Holland (were we both sail) bu even then there were never more then 2 clubs that had more then 5 FX-one's. Namely, Muiderzand and Noordwijk. Of course we are going into our second Alter Cup event on F16's now. That means 11 charter boats that some company needs to finance and sell right afterwards. Last time all boats were sold in no-time at all (pre-sold). This time the expectation is no less impressive. If we are "a small class" with a very limted foot print then no builder could justify that. I think it is time to recognize that the F16 class is breaking through. Maybe not in NL but certainly in certainly in several other places over the world.

I also really don not think the F18's and F16's overlap that much. F16's always have a very large single handed contintient (about 50%) that the F18's will never have. The size of the hulls (fat) really is no factor as even the Taipan could be raced well up to 155 kg. We always had an overlap with the F18's in the way of 2-up crew weights even when initially many people thought the F16's were better suited to midgets. The latter has always been a misunderstanding that we have finally been able to kill.

Additinally, I don't think the F16 sailor were so hot on attending every regatta in the first years either. I don't see how we were favored against the FX-one in that respect. The Fx-one failed because not for a single reason in my opinion but because it was just not "it" for a series of reasons. And that is also the compliant about the iCat in this thread. Both may be very good boats techinically but they do not strike the right balance between a set of desires and market realities. Not like the F16's do.

And I think that is what the whole thread is about.


Wouter

I think I understand where you are coming from Tony and as a European Fleet there are very few of us who actively attend the bigger regattas to firmly promote the Class and excellent qualities of the boat. This in turn is having a detrimental effect on demand figures.
However, like most Cat Clubs out of the majority in your case of 500 Cats I'm sure that only a tiny percentage are less than 5yrs old and the vast majority are decaying Pringles, Inters/NACRA's & Tigers which rarely race and seldom travel. So to have two fairly new F16's is pretty good.
I'm not totally convinced about an average 140kg F18 team being very competitive in all conditions and aspects of racing but that's another debate;-). Also, as much as I liked the FX One the idea of attempting to right the boat post capsize was a real turn off. So in my case there was something wrong with the product.
Anyway, I will agree with you if we are not careful here in Europe we could be seen as the Wednesday night joy riders but as long as the numbers increase as they have been doing so for the past 6yrs and the camaraderie of the fleet still remains then I'm happy with this label.

And that is just because why the iCat is so interesting. It is basically the same as a full carbon F16 that hobie is now offering commerically. The modifications needed to be an F16 will not add any cost to the iCat. Indeed, if it were to use the Superwing mast, the cost will in fact be lowered by a significant amount.

So if Hobie can justify doing the iCat then there is absolutely no reason why it can't do a F16. (assuming the min iCat weight is indeed 220 lbs and not some 280 lbs)

Other then that, I think any class that becomes succesful worldwide must be prepared to take on the big boys. It is not like we can keep them out if they desire to enter.

Wouter

Yes I agree but there are statistics and statistics, they can be manipulated to your desire as any politician will agree.

Out of 500 cats how many are sailed more than 50 hours a year ? 50 hours is not a lot but to most boats in your boat park I would bet there would be less than say 50 - 75 boats. Certainly at my club where there are probably 50 - 60 cats the majority actually are sailed very infrequently for what ever reason.

Now if we look at my clubs active boats then the F16's have become probably the most used boats with one or two F18's, a few Darts, a couple of FX1's and a Tornado and if you then divided those by class then the F16's certainly would be the most active boats within a class.

Why then is it active, principally the single handed issue where most are sailed 1 up and the occassional girlfriend or rugrat comes on as crew.

In my opinion there is no crossover between the F18 and the F16's, different horses for different courses. The F18's are for the big boy crews and the F16's for the little boy and crew.

The FX1 failed at Datchet which had over a dozen at one stage for a very real reason, it was a compromise boat that sailed well with 2 light crew but failed abysmally with its other hat, that of a single handed boat being just too heavy and unrightable ( which I think has now been resolved with the use of a righting pole ). Sadly the final nails in the FX1's coffin was that the F16's are now on average faster, considerably cheaper and can be moved around on the beach single handed.

Didn't we have a shared event with the FX-one one time at Datchet ? The end result I remember was that the UK FX-one fleet quickly desintegrated afterwards and the UK F16 fleet grew.

Wouter

Correct but the FX1 fleet in truth had already began to sell their boats and buy F16's prior to the event.

A well sailed FX1 is just about on a par with a F16 but it would seem that we are getting faster as we sail and understand the boats more, where as the FX1's are not. I see no reason why the FX1 shouldn't really compete in the F16 class as perhaps a grandfathered boat, even though they technically are not class legal.

The F16 better be faster, it has a 5 point handicap difference .
(IMHO the F16 texel-rating of 101 is too steep anywayz).

Holy crap, how did this turn into bash the FXone class?

The FXone can be righted with a bag in lighter air singlehanded. Even at minimum weight. I weigh anywhere from right at minimum (157lbs) to 5 lbs over. Trust me I right it all the time. When the wind is up it can be righted with out the bag.


In the area I live there is one dominating class, and that is the H16. It may have better numbers, but in no way would I call it strong. There is just no other Hobie boats. A few H20's, a Tiger, some H14's, that's about it. I can't really say why the FXone didn't catch on. Its a great ride, a pig, but it dances very well for her weight. Like Mike said earlier in the thread, the build quality is excellent too. The biggest problem with the HCE boats in the U.S. is the price. I'd be very surprised if a H16 cost much more than an FXone or a Tiger to produce. The materials and labor can not be that different. Figure HCE has to make a profit, it has to be shipped, there's a tariff on it for being imported, HC U.S. has to make a profit, the dealers have to make a profit, and the exchange rate maybe better for us than it was last year, but the euro has almost always been higher than the USD. Thats five things that are raising the price! HC U.S. isn't interested in producing performance boats anymore, that's obvious. That's not a bad thing, except to those who live in a Hobie area. Gotta go where the money is, I totally understand that.

The FXone is faster than its portsmouth number, I know this for a fact. I'm a hack at the tiller and can get it to its number pretty easily.

Two reasons I would buy a iCat over other manufactures, depsite the inflated price.
1. I can still play in the Hobie sandbox. Their regatta's are still the closest for me.
2. Build quality/design.

Heck, I might go to an A-cat. I'm the right weight, and I'm tall, it'd be a good fit. I love running the spinnaker, but I do crash alot because of it.

We're not bashing the FX1 at all, they are a great boat for two light weight crew, yes they sail well under their handicap ( there were rumours that the mast measurement was not included in the sail area )and they are built extremely well.

Never the less as far as the F16's go, there are now better more suited boats in my opinion

I kind of agree here.

I would not question the FX1 but more Hobies reasoning behind making a hopped up version of a boat that was not overy successfull in the first iteration. Maybe they found a buyer group or maybe it is just a last attempt to use the molds they already have in their factory.

I think the FX compares very well with the early F16 - The latest iterations have progressed to surpass it IMO.

Hobie Europe builds a very good product. The beach cat sailors are totaly spoiled when it comes to what boats cost to them when you compare what you get relative to other classes of boats or even other sports.

Manufacturing in low volume composites is expensive. No builder is going to purposely over charge for anything and stay in bussiness. They do however have to cover what it cost to get these boats made. There were some post bitching on the cost for the new Wild Cat. Hobie has a name designer and a team of manufacturing people and a team of sailors who have all been working for over a year if not years on getting this boat delivered. Add in the costs for molds and I am sure some new components and they have to recover a lot of costs. Of course you want the newest sail cuts and materials along with carbo blocks and all high tech lines.

Hell a new H16 is comming up on 11K. There is no harware to speak of on one and the molds and tooling have been long ago paid for. If it was a situation where the company was "overcharging" for this boat, Hobie US would still be making them as there would be profit in them.

I can see where buyers want to get the most bang for thier buck, but I see where ther bigger players would not want to get involved in a class that does not already have momentum as the costs benefit to the builder will never be justified.

The A class is a great example. Performance tried to play and lost their butt. This is a sucessfull class but has always been driven by the backyard devlopers. Bim is sort of the exception, but most of the new ideas and trials are all from guys doing it for their own enjoyment and at their own cost. (Curved boards, and Bens wing sail be 2 of the most publicized recent examples) Successfull ideas get copied and the other die out. The expectation though is the very highest and no production builder with overhead can live off of the slim margin these types of product make at the end of the day.

The F16 seems to be following the A model. With more and more expectations being requested by the users, you can see why Hobie and performance are not jumping in, but trying, at least what to me seems deserate, measures to sell their already completed designs F17 and FX against the F16.

Karl,

You really have got to arrange for a ride on a F16 or A-cat.

You'll notice the difference in design when compared to the FX-one immediately.

I don't think anyone is saying the FX-one is bad, but rather that the F16's and A's are noticeably better.


Fair winds,

Wouter

After all that talk about the FX-1 let us come back to the ICat.
On all pictures I know, it has only a main, but no spi. Is there one to come later? Also, it is interesting that the mast is just 8.5m, does it mean that they might offer a alu mast sometimes later?
Personally I think that the aspect ratio of the sail is too low, and without spi a downwind leg might be challenging. At all it seems not be racer.

Cheers,

Klaus

There was a picture somewhere that showed it with a spinnaker on it, but it also showed it with the rear beam raised up. Probably a prototype/early variation, so who the frick knows? They definetly aren't just re-using molds, there is a difference in shape that is obvious when you compare pics from the same angle. The FXone is dragging around another 100lbs, so that comes into play going downwind with out the chute, and its a turd with out the spinnaker up.


Wouter- I get it man! People seem to have the idea that the FXone is a bad design, or doesn't sail well and that just isn't the case. Honestly just looking at hull shapes compared to the Falcon, (which I did see in person a couple of weeks ago), the FXone still has a better shape to it, but that is from the eyes of a casual observer/potential buyer/admittedly biased opinion. She's got a fat butt in comparison, and weight does mean a hell of alot in this sport, especially when its in the realm of 35%

Karl, I don't understand what you mean by this statement:

>>Honestly just looking at hull shapes compared to the Falcon, (which I did see in person a couple of weeks ago), the FXone still has a better shape to it, but that is from the eyes of a casual observer/potential buyer/admittedly biased opinion. She's got a fat butt in comparison, and weight does mean a hell of alot in this sport, especially when its in the realm of 35%.<<

Are you saying the Falcon has a fat butt?

When it comes to all the different hull shapes out there, I try to look at each one as if I designed it, and ask why it's shaped like that. Each is shaped for a specific purpose, so I look at the hull and ask myself, "What wind/water/wave conditions was that designed for? And what will happen when you get into some other type of wind/water/wave conditions?

I think every boat is designed with a "Purpose" in mind. The quest becomes to find the right boat design for your purposes, and not some design that really won't work in your situation. I think all cats I've seen designed in the past 20 years are very "Pretty" to look at, fat butt or no. You just have to decide if that's going to "work" for your situation. Ocean sailing? Lake? 1 up, 2 up, heavy, light, big wind, light air??? All of that should be considered.

"I like big butts and I cannot lie, you other brother's can't deny..."

Sing along Bitches! You KNOW you know the words!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNQU-tVSuw4


Bye the Way, that is NOT Sir Mix Alot, that is really JC trying to look like Sir Mix Alot. That JC sure can sing though! "Go Freak, Go Freak..."

No the FXone has a fat butt not the Falcon, just in term of weight.

The FX has a ton of volume, and its lower than it is on the Falcon. Another thing that I like about the shape is the top of the FX bow is more rounded then the Falcon, and much more so than the Blades. That's what I was getting at. The truth is that every boat see's a wide variation in conditions, even if you are just a lake sailor, or just an ocean sailor. Conditions overlap. I'm just shooting generalizations. In lighter conditions there's actually too much volume up front, its really hard for a lightweight to get the nose pushed in. But when the wind is up, its a god send. I did manage to pitch it this past weekend with out the kite up going down wind. Should've pulled the boards up, probably never would've happened.

Sorry for the missunderstanding Karl. And I've never seen an FX1 up close so I can't comment on the fat butt, but my wife told me NEVER to say -anything- has a fat butt, so I really can't go there...I'll take your word for it.

If you think the FX1 hull shape is very bouyant then you should try the Stealth for example, I was shocked when I had a sail on the FX1 just how easy it was to get the nose down and I was surprised just how when the nose did go down how it would continue to almost drive itself down, it was a bit of an eye opener to say the least.

A very sexy shape that just doesn't do what is advertised on the tin in my opinion. In saying that is it a good boat, yes definately for its design age, just things have now got better as we understand more things about very flat spinnakers and the forces they impose.

Karl,

You'll be sailing a Viper soon, right? I'd be interested in your thoughts when you get back.

Karl,

Have you ever sailed a Blade or Falcon? I personally disagree with your opinion on the shape of the boats. And I think your opinion is not based upon sailing experience. Personally I have sailed on a FXone (2-up) (and own a Blade) and sailed a couple of times 1up against others.

What you surely will agree on is that in lighter air (up to 10 knots) the Blade (and probably the improved Falcon) is way our of league for the FXOne (1 and 2 up). Even with 2 on the Blade and an FXone solo we gently sail away (up and downwind).

In heavier winds I have only sailed 2up on the FXone with no F16 to compare. My feeling there was that the boat was as challenging as the Blade. I do agree that the FXone will recover more easily from a pitchpole then the Blade due to the hull shape.

You really should get a test ride and feel the difference.

Gill

Guys,

maybe you should really name this threat the FX-1 bashing threat. It is not about the price of the Icat, or what is in the package, it is just silly F16 power branding.
I don't belief that anybody can judge a boat after one time sailing. You need some hours to learn how to trim. Remember how was your first trip on a F16. An you never got the bows under water, right?

Ok. back to the topic. Even without a spi, I think that the 17000EUR is a fair price for an all carbon boat, assuming good equipement and a modern sail. Apart from that, I like the fact that Hobie is renewing it's fleet of performance boats, committing to modern (or different) materials, sailcut and layout (the Pearl has a furled genaker for example). In the long term it is good for all sailors.

Cheers,

Klaus

This is a 100% bash free post (some tcsh might come tough)

I like it when new boats come up. Not all are destined for success but only time and marketing will tell. Fat bottoms make the rocking world go round and everybodys taste is different. I'll go down in the workshop and fit the last planks on panel #7.

I've sailed and raced the FX-one in both setups for close to 75 hours in total and I've spend 2 days tuning and triming so it it felt well balanced (as it had been setup by a H16 sailor before). In fact, I've almost dedicated a total of 4 weeks of sailing in all kinds of conditions over a 18 month time span.

I think that I'm entitled to my honest appraisal.

It isn't like I jumped on it for 5 min and proclaimed that I had sassed it out. I gave it lots of time to proof itself as I was looking to buy one. In the end I just could not bring myself to do so and co-founded the F16 class.

I agree with the others. It has too much volume for 1-up sailing, bows almost always ride out of the water and are doing nothing for you. The mast is very stiff and the daggerboards are too long, this makes for a flighty boat in gusty conditions with only an insufficient 8:1 downhaul that can't really bend the mast enough. It is actually a noticeably better boat when sailed 2-up at about 120-150 kg. And at 85 kg I could not right her unaided (by rescue boat or special righting aids) while I can right my own F16 in all conditions from very light winds to harsh conditions. When comparing dive resistance / recovery then the FX-one wasn't much better then the F16's I've sailed (for less hours then I did the FX-one). The Stealth F16 was by far the best boat in this respect.

And I really don't think that stating ones truly honest evaluation can be marked as bashing. Or am I also bashing the stove when I tell my nephew that placing ones hand in the fire hurts ?

Now again, thew FX-one is not a bad boat in its own right but in comparison to a well designed F16 it is easy to tell where its design can be improved.

Wouter

Hi Wouter,

I didn't quote you and I didn't have you in mind.

Do we still get a fruitful discussion about the design and pricing of the Icat? Many interesting points, like low aspect ratio sail, low mast height (compared to A cats), CFRP hulls...

Cheers,

Klaus

Ohh, my mistake !




If you want ? Of course !

Aspect ratio of the mainsail = 8.1^2/16 = 4.10
Aspect ratio F16's = 8.1^2/15 = 4.37
Aspect ratio F18's = 8.6^2/17 = 4.35
Aspect ratio A's = 8.8^2/13.95 = 5.55

But of more interest are the mast heights

iCat/FX-extreme/FX-one = 8.5 mtr
F16's = 8.5 mtr
F18's = 9.15 mtr
A-cats = 9.10 mtr

From an energetic point of view those 16 sq. mtr. of mainsail on a 8.5 mtr mast do not differ from the 15 sq. mtr. sailarea of the F16's on an equally tall mast. that is what the aspect ratio confirms.

Roughly speaking, both the iCat and F16's will milk the same body of air for energy and there is no reason to believe that the added sq.mtr. on the iCat will milk more. In fact, in lighter winds the airflow will stall more easily on the iCat sail and in big winds the added area will only require more depowering. I for one expect the iCat sail to be as good as the same in performance at both 16 and 15 sq. mtr. Which in my view makes the upgrade to 16 sq. mtr. (and non-F16 compliance) pretty useless.

With respect to CFRP hulls, if the iCat comes out at 220 lbs (ex spi) or higher then the use of carbon is questionable. F16's get down as low as 104 kg with plain alu tubes and GFRP. The added stiffness of the carbon in the hulls and beams will never amount to a significant performance difference. It will feel nicer but that is not the same as being faster.

But more interestingly look at the iCat pics (especially about the sterns):

http://www.hobie-cat.net/img/phototeque/icat/index.html

And then at the Falcon pics (or other F16)

http://www.falconmarinellc.com/falconf16.html


I will tell you where the major difference is between the iCat and the F16's. The iCat has about 230 mm longer sterns behind the rear beam. So making a F16 hull out of the iCat is pretty easy. Just insert a 230 long plug into the mould and move the stern 230 forward while fitting the same rudder stocks.

I've notices the same things when a F16 laid next to a Tiger or FX-one. The bows, the mainbeam location, stays etc are all in the same place. It is just the rearbeam location and the length of the sterns that are different. With regard to the FX-one the rearbeam was pretty much at the same location as the F16 and only the stern was longer by a 230 mm.

Since the keel line at the sterns is pretty horizontal anyway, you can just cut it away without upsetting the balance of the boat significantly. You are not really going to miss those 3 kg of bouyancy. Shifting your weight a little bit more forward will bring the boat back on its waterline again.

So, while trying to be really unbiased, I'm again amazed at how closely the iCat resembles the F16's. I truly amazed as to why Hobie Europe decided to go that route.

Wouter

So Mike and Karl,

You guys may even try to purchase an iCat F16 !

Just order your hulls with the last 230 mm chopped of the sterns. This is less problematic then it sounds !

I wrote 230 mm here (= 9 inches) as that is the hull length measurement of the FX-one and I have as of yet no reason to believe that the iCat hull is longer then the hull of the FX-one.

And then ask for a 15.0 sq. mtr. mainsail and you are ready to go !

Wouter

I guess Hobie will not in a Formula class, if they can avoid it. They like SMOD, the Tiger has its on class in parallel to the F18. That says a lot. Hence I would not only compare against F16...


Opposite: it will stall easier on the smaller sail, since the chord is shorter and hence the Reynoldsnumber is lower. So larger cLmax for the Icat. Furtherore a 16sqm sail with same luff length has 6% more maximum lift due to area. Hence the the Icat has a bit more than 6% additional lift.
Of course it doesnot help beating, but on a run or downwind without spi.


yes and it will have more friction drag, hence lower lift/drag ratio and sail lower when beating.

As well, a CFRP in 9m can still be righted by a single sailor, but they didn't use this advantage, the stay at 8.5m. Which means more induced drag (compared against a A-cat for example), so again lower angle while beating, but less heeling moment. That means it can be sailed with more lift in strong winds. On a run, quite useful again.

All that let me think of a boat which is optimised for a run, rather than for upwind-downwind. So not a racer but a fun boat with a lot of bling bling?

Of course one could simply cut the ends of the hulls, but the volume distribution would be not optimum, apart form the fact that wave drag rises anyway with less length (at same displacement).

Where does the weight number comes from? I would wonder if they achieve only 220lb.

Cheers,

Klaus

A catamaran sail is not an aircraft wing and aspect ratio / Reynolds numbers are only part of the story.

The wider iCat sail will require the airflow flowing over it to contain more energy to overcome the (longer stretch of) negative pressure gradient towards the leech. If this air flow doesn't live up to this requirement then a backflow region will form that will detach part of the flow from the sail surface. This is conceptually very akin to stalling. This is the same reason why full sails are slower then flat sails in light winds. Read up on on this topic in High Performance Sailing by Bethwaite.




Ahh, but have you factored in the energy balance ? Or would you claim that a 150 sq. mtr. sail behind the same 8.1 luff will have 10 times additional lift ? Note that I was talking about light winds right !

When the craft moves at 2.5 m/s then a total area of 5*8.1 = 22.5 sq. mtr is swept for energy (harvesting). The total amount of energy enclosed in the assocated body of flowing air is a finite measure and hence the maximal amount of lift (drive) that can be milked from it is limited as well. My claim is that in light winds the total amount of net energy available for harvesting is the limit to maximal attainable drive and not any secondary measures like sail area as is the case in medium winds. In strong winds the total amount of righting moment is the limit and then too sail area is of negligible importance. So a larger amount of sail area is favoured in mid range winds but not on either the light or strong wind ends. That was my point I wanted to get across in my earlier posting.


Wouter

Yes, but both move through the same medium, the air, which belongs to the same law of physics.


Actually, assuming the Icat sail has the same cp-peak and the same pressure recovery over its longer chord, it will take out more energy of the flow, hence more lift. That's the area effect, bigger sail, more lift. Both sails could start from the same cp-peak, since this is the real physical limit. Both sails will recover the cp to about zero at the trailing edge. However the sail with the longer chord has this pressure gradient over a longer distance, hence less steep, hence more stable, less prone to stalling.



Of course, you cannot take out more energy from the wind as there is in it. However there is plenty of energy, if the wind is blowing constantly in a large area. That's what most people would call favorite sailing conditions. Having just small patches of wind whispering here and there (what you call light wind?) might such a case of limited energy.


There is never a finite volume which is affected, since both the up- and downstream air is affected (even the air above the sail). That follows directly from the principle of conservation of momentum and mass.

Assuming same mast height and luff length, a 16sqm sail will be favored above a 15.5sqm sail on a run or downwind leg.

Cheers,

Klaus

And yet the total energy available for harvesting is finite just the same (my point).

The total sum of 0.3 + 0.03 + 0.003 + 0.0003 + 0.00003 + etc may indeed be infinite in its composition but it final value is not ! Note how the value of the above infinite sum is simply 1/3rd; the quotient of two very much non-infinite numbers.

Look at the bigger picture. God doesn't roll dice and there are no infinite end results in physics. There are only limitations to what the human mind can still comprehent and inaccuracies in our mathematical models.




Unless it encounters another limit that is overlooked. I was never talking about an airflow with sufficient high energy levels, I was talking about light airs; the area were very tall and skinny A-cats sail excel. Now the question to us all is why they do so. It is because they have lower drag coefficients in their sails or because their rigs swep a larger area of moving air and thus tap into a larger volume of available energy ? Note, that as soon as the body of air becomes sufficiently energized they loose much of their advantage.





In fact, the maximal amount you can harvest is significantly lower then that.

Look up the Betz law to get an idea of what kind of limits are at play.




Over all possible conditions ?

I think you will find that there are exceptions.

Wouter

The propulsive power of a saildrive is P=F*v, which is P=0.5*rho*v_appwind^2*v*Ssail*Cn, with Cn as aerodynamic force coefficient, and ssail=lluff*chord
The windenergy is Pw=0.5*mass_air*vwind^2 or Pw=0.5*rho*vwind^2*Acapture*v, with Acapture is the cross section area of the wind affected air mass. A simple but wrong assumption would be 1/4*pi*lufflength^2)
Boat speed v and apparent wind will depend on wind speed vapp^2=vwind^2+v^2.

eta=P/Pwind, with all assumptions take into account leads to:
eta=4/pi*chord*cN/lufflength*(1+(vboat/vwind)^2)

eta must be <1, (the Betz law in only applicable for standing wind power plants, not for moving. Sail are not like wings, but as well not like wind turbines )
anyway we could deduce vboat/vwind = sqrt(lufflength/chord-1). Hence more chord is less speed, which is something what you have in mind, I guess.

Now I make a realty check: I was sailing with my wife on our 14sqm sail area, 8.5m luff length Javelin 16, around 225kg. My friend was sailing his T solo and Uni (around 17.5sqm and 9.x m luff, 230kg). Light winds, we had all difficulties to get the hulls out of the water. As long as we were sailing Uni, we was pretty much the same speed. However once we open our genaker (low luff of about 6m, but lots of chord), we took off and was ways faster. This happend not only one day.

So what is wrong with the theory above? It is the assumption of the capture area, because it depends not on luff length, but on sail area. If I remember right, there is good explaination in "The origins of lift" from Arvel Gentry, somewhere on the internet.


No, in strong winds the adavndage disappears. It is sometimes better, sometimes equal on these courses, but worse when beating. That's way I think Hobie has different customers in mind. More recrational sailors than racers, which are probably the bulk.

Cheers,

Klaus

Read what I actually wrote. I said :

"Look up the Betz law to get an idea of what kind of limits are at play."

I didn't state the Betz law was fully applicable to the sails just that similar limits are at play. Even a sail can not milk 100% of the energy enclosed in the wind as that would mean completely stopping the flow and as we all know, stopping the flow is associated with all kinds of bad effects like stalling.

Other then that I think you quotes of mathematical formula (physics) is confusing, also to yourself. You say :



But this equation is ONLY true when sailing on a beam reach. For upwind sailing and broad reaching you'll need to modify this Theorem of Pythagoras considerably.

I understand what you are trying to get at, but beware of modeling errors. Todays racing sees very little beam reaching and that course is of no significant importance for bouy racing. If the iCat was designed as an optimal reaching boat then it would have had a jib.




What I was getting at was that sail area itself is only of secondary of tertairy importance in the larger picture. Luff length (as that is associated with swept area) and sail shape (large heads) are more significant factors for overall performance, especially in light winds. Therefore I claim that using the same mast length and luff length as the F16's the iCat larger mainsail will at the very best show only very small performance improvements in conditions other then medium winds. As a result, it is questionable if the larger sail will be a factor at all in comparison to the F16's. I truly believe that iCat to be about the same performance with a 15 sq. mtr. sail as with its current 16 sq. mtr. sail although the measurement based rating systems will assign a full hit for the extra 1sq. mtr. anyway.


If I punch in the numbers for the 1-ups + spi in the Texel rating calculator I find the following

Hobie iCat 97.65
Formula 16 100.67

I've used the same data for the iCat as the F16 except for the hull length and mainsail sail area. In answering Karls question. The minimal weight for a spinnaker setup+snuffer is 4.0 kg or more. Typically they are around 5kg therefor the ready to sail weight of the iCat was set at 104 kg = F16 min weight in 1-up mode.

I personally don't see the iCat with the given specs outperforms the F16's by 3 handicap points (108 sec = a shy 2 min. per hour racing). Not when the only differences are a 0.290 mtr longer hull and an added sq. mtr mainsail area behind the same luff.

Wouter

Here are some of the iCat specs Hobie is willing to make public as of yet.

http://www.hobie-cat.net/img/produits/icat_description.pdf


And Klaus




I wonder how many recreational sailors will pop 17.600 Euro's for a boat they are not intending to race anyway. And why none of them would not pop 15.000 Euro's for an extremely similar F16 that in when used in recreational sailing will feel no different then the iCat.

In fact I feel that this particular group of sailors will most likely buy the Nacra 500 at 12.500 Euro's which is actually a very good design with an excellent new suit of modern sails by Performance Sails. The H16 is already at 10.600 Euro's and basically a dog when compared to the Nacra 500. In fact, the Nacra 500 is a hit at my own sailing club. The non-race-oriented guys who used to do Prindle and Hobie's (excl. Tigers) are switching to the Nacra 500.

Wouter

Yep, on Sunday mornings my communication skills are not fully unfold but you managed to get it anyway.


If it is considered as a single hander, not necessarily.


Some people buy simple watches for 15 Euros, other for 300 or 10000 Euros. Because it looks good.


Because there are very few F16 dealers, but many Hobie dealers and many people like after sale service, if they put a lot of bucks on the table.


It depends pretty much where you are, what dealer is there, etc. On our remote beach for example, A-Cats seems to be liked for that as well, somewhere else that are Nacras, Topcats or Swell Shadows (the later is quite comparable to the Icat, not necessary in the dimension or price, but in the target group) or whatever. Hobie missed to offer an adequate product there, and I speculate the Icat could it be.

Cheers,

Klaus

how long is the Hobie ICat ?

Simon,

Check the link to the pdf file Wouter has posted. Longueur = length....

Thanks, cannot find all up weight....

Simon,



Nobody knows the weight yet, but the most persistent rumour has it at 220 lbs (or 100 kg).

I, for one, don't expect it to come out lower then that anyway.

Wouter

Various SCHRS Ratings

F16 single handed 0.982 (A Calsses are about the same)

Icat in various weight guises, I've assumed the plates are high aspect as per a fully optimiesed F16, same luff length on the maisail at 8.1 and the same size kite at 17.5sqm (rating without kite in ())

100kg - 0.947 (0.995)
104 - 0.953 (1.001)
110 - 0.962 (1.010)
120 - 0.976 (1.025)
130 - 0.990 (1.040)
140 - 1.003 (1.054)
150 - 1.017 (1.068)
151 - 1.018 (1/069)
160 - 1.030 (1.081)

As Wouter says nobody knows the weight yet. A-cats are down to 75kg, so I wounder why a one foot shorter, 0.5m lower boat should be heavier. 100kg would be a shame, since you could do this in GRP and alu as well.

What would be the rating at 80kg?

Cheers,

Klaus

80 kg = 0.962
75 kg = 0.954
70 kg = 0.945

Why stop at 80 ?

Hell, ask for the rating with the iCat at 75 kg !

Wouter

Wouter,

I provided ratings at 80,75 and 70.

yep, what would be the limit? 70kg maybe. But give some extra material to the mast for sailing with two persons, some extra material for French pebble beaches, so it will be more. However I have some concerns...

Simon,

thanks for calculating.

Cheers,

Klaus