Why Nacra can and should compete

They did well in helping errect the F18 class [by building boats to the class rules],
they tried the F20 class, not sure how compliant the F20C is to the rules

could be a good thing to the F16 class if they build an F16

oh and btw I love the look of the F20C, they will carry that over is what I hearded

Mike Krantz has bought a F20. The guy knows his stuff and that's recommendation enough for me. I'm sure they'll be fine.

A Nacra F16 would be a wonderful addition to the line imo.

Come on now lose the rose colored glasses.

Nacra virtually single handedly kept the F18 class from happening in the US for years. They kept pushing their I 18 with a larger sail plan and it took a long time and extra effort by a few dedicated individuals to finally convince enough people to buy into the F18 concept here in the states.

There is what 5 or 6 versions of the 17 (F class ???) 3 versions of the 6.0, at least 2 for the 5.5 and 5.2 each. The new “F” 20 is not built to any rule it is just a distance racer to compete heads up with the M20.

No bashing of boats here, but Nacra has a pretty distinguished history of not supporting class racing.

There is potential for them to really help the class, we can only hope their product if they choose to make one, it represents well.

Nacra has the 16square, I believe before they kill that class and enter the F16 market, which will happen one day but at the moment what will happen is the current 16sq. will be modernised, it will have a square top instead of the current pin head and a asmetrical spinaker added, still a 1 up cat, and in saying this I raced against one recently where the nacra people were and it had the spinaker conversion, it performed well and the changes would be inexpensive, so dont hold your breath, as for hobie, its a business and if they can make money then they will produce the goods, but it will be at cost of the hobie 16 and i cant see that happening, perhaps a upgrade to the existing models which would be cheap an worthwhile without killing the class, especially at the current ecenomic times

Nacra and Hobie.. What is the big deal. The class is strong enough on its own without them. Enjoy the sailing and racing and the class is perfect and healthy. We dont need any big names. Perfection, happyness and joy is not found in numbers but in experiences.

I understand the wish to spread the "evangelism", but worry less, dont try to conquer the world. Enjoy what is, the present, and forget about world dominance in the future.


I am off to chant a few hare krishnas..

Amen brother! :-)
(I agree)

It's an open formula class. If it is strong, healthy, and growing then any manufacturer or home builder would be remiss not to consider having an interest in it. We really have only 2 options presently in the US. Both of which I admire. If one pulls out or there is a merger, it is a single manufacturer. Whereas, if a "big box" builder joins; odds are the additional marketing effort will bring even more boats to the class and all 3+ vendors would enjoy increased sales. Sort of like the restaurant park idea. For Nacra or Hobie, it may be more about not loosing sales to an attractive alternative to their SMOD products.

The era of formula classes is upon us!

Humm Nacra 16?
That wasn't on their webpage last week.

is http://www.cathouse1.com/ speaking for Nacra?

Nothing on nacra.com

They'd better do their homework and send their top drivers!

Imo, this is very, very good for the F16 class.

If they get on the water by spring, they'll be well sorted by September Nationals at WRSC! Things keep looking better

There you go. Now why worry..

"Good for the class" no doubt is a very personal idea.

WOW...

Hi Rolf! Why would I be worried and how is this bad for the class?

Wrong context Pete.

They don't have a boat yet. It is in the works though.

I think this was something that was always a possibility and to some extent the intent. I know that I was involved with the F16's to build a better mouse trap and what better way to define succes then to see the scene converge on the F16 idea.

I'm excited by the prospect but also guarded. On the other hand I have full confidence that the F16 class will keep her rudder straight. By God, she has shown that many times over the last years. The rules are simple and clear; the playing is level for all builders and the performance between boats (even with a little extra weight) is well balanced. Any builder building to the rules is warmly welcomed and if any plays a game of forcing through rule changes to their own liking then they'll get the cold shoulder. In short the F16 class is both clear and just and garantuees a stable class to all builders.

Beyond that I'm anxious to see what Nacra comes up with. Lets give them the benefit of the doubt; it could also be something very good !

Wouter

It will be great for the class although I think it will maybe start 'out dating' some boats? I only say it because it seems like there has been a lot of turnover in the f18 class.

Patrick, I don't see it. I sail against the best and newest frequently. The margin shrinks as my ineptitude shrinks. I actually beat people occassionally.

Honestly, I believe we will only see small, gradual gains in boat perfromance and that will come primarily through weight reduction.

It's really gonna hit the fan when the factories and rock stars realize that in some light air, flat water conditions a sloop doesn't stand a chance against a uni rig. Following that reasoning, when a world class sailor/athlete about 6' 3" and 215 lbs shows up, he will own the class!

I would think that the relative success of the viper points to the fact that small/moderate differences in weight don't make a big difference. I will bet some$$ that nacra f16 will weigh closer to the viper than Matt's boats. Nacra would do well to the alter cup with them too

How much?

BE intresting to see wheter Nacra go down the route of minimum weight or heaveier and more in line with the Viper to get a bit of better handicap aswell

I'm eagerly awaiting the fist regatta where I'll be seriously beaten by Macca himself on a F16

I hope it outdates everything out there. I hope it sets a new standard by raising the bar. I hope it pushes Falcon Marine, and AHPC to pump out a better boats.



Not really, the Tiger ran for a looooong time. Capricorn was around 4-5years? Infusion has been around quite a while as well. The nice thing with new boats is somebody always has to have the latest and greatest, (with only a marginal performance gain), and it puts used boats on the market, making them more affordable to people.

"fist" regatta. I don't think it will come to that.

I don't know about that. Nacra isn't going to produce a product significantly better than Falcon Marine at the same cost and same weight. Not going to happen. I think Matt makes great boats and I would take his Falcon over a Viper or the Nacra boat (although it is hard to say... I would go with a Falcon over the Nacra if the Nacra weighs in well over the minimum). Vectorworks/Falcon Marine customer service is a lot better than Nacra's IMO. Don't have much experience personally with AHPC.
On a different level... I would not wish badness on the people who actually had the balls to start producing the boats that invented the F16 class. It is only due to Matt/Vectorworks/Falcon that this class actually exists in the US.

no ill will wished dude! I'm not saying either boat is poor, but you, Matt, or Greg can't say there isn't room for improvement.

I just want the F16 to be all that it can be and competition amongst the builders is a good way to spur development. That's the nature of just about any business, keep up with the competition or get left behind.

I hear you. I want development and improvement too, but I do want to give some props to the "founders" and the people who can produce quality boats in the US at minimum weight.

Lol, nice typo I meant first!

We can forgive you Pepin, its just the way the French say things

What if and heres a what if, Nacra put banana boards on the F16, it would seem a logical thing to do if the same designers are being used as their F20 and from a marketing point of one upmanship + they would be able to use less voluminous hulls to carry the weight ( I know it would be trade off in light airs ) but it would put them outside the F16 class rules.

But isnt the F16 class all about allowing development??

curved boards are cool!!

No. The class is about sailing, and limited developement.

Banana boards are currently not allowed, but it might be about time to rethink that one....

I hope this isn't an indication that Nacra plans to build a 16 that is 'almost' F16 compliant, or builds a boat with the hopes that class rules will simply bend to allow for their boat to fit into the box.

As an interested outsider planning to pick up an F16 sometime in the next year I'd like to comment on what interests me about the class. It's not the development. That's what the A class is for. If I wanted to get into a full on development class I would get an A cat.

What interests me is the flexibility the class offers to me as a sailor; one up or two up is class legal, has a kite and I should be able to right the boat by myself. On top of these fine attributes is the box rule which limits development so some degree. If I wanted to get into a development class, again, I'd buy an A cat. I don't, and my guess is that most current and perspective F16 owners don't either.

I really don't think curved boards are a viable solution for the F16 class. They are very cool and certainly to elevate the performance of the boat and the sailing experience. But they are very expensive to design, develop and build, to the point that they would be prohibitive for pretty much all the current builders and thats not the point really.

Most of you know my views on the class rules relating to development and I would be very happy to see tighter rules, hence reducing costs. Rather than throwing heaps of $$ at developing uber boats..

Where are you located?

Ann Arbor, MI. Not ready yet, just spent a huge chunk of my F16 fund on a surgery for my dog... but, I've got the winter to build that fund back up!

No thats not quite the case, all the development cost has now been spent on the F20, to integrate that knowledge now into a slightly smaller boat is very minimal and it would spread the cost over more boats.

With modern CNC mills cutting out the moulds, its almost irrelavent whether the board is curved or straight and equally the cost is not significantly higher to produce, a mould is a mould.

But would I want to see them in the F16 class, not right now, perhaps in the future when all the development has taken place in the A's and other classes and we understand them better.

One thing for sure the performance of the F16's is only going to be marginally better with curved boards and greater gains could be found in other functions of design.

Contact CRAW. You might be able to get connected. Hopefully some of those folks will be able to sneak away for Tradewinds/Jan., Charlotte Harbor/Feb., and/or GYC/Apr.

Cheers!

Macca,
Is Nacra working on a boat and when will you launch it?

Gill

Gill,
Nacra is definitely working on a boat. They would not be certain of a release date I suspect. 18 months minimum is my guess.

My bet is it will have a 104 texel rating.

I could of course be completely wrong on all counts.

Yes, I have been looking for an affordable used boat and can't find one, especially considering the extra shipping here to Hawaii.

Who are you? I was in Ann Arbor a couple of weekends ago with a Viper.

(edit)- Also currently in CRAW we have a used Blade, Falcon, and Viper available. I'm not sure the age of the Blade, but the Falcon was new last spring, and the Viper hasn't even hit the US yet, and I can get you a new Viper as well.

Wayne, If you seriously think that the development done on the F20 foils will negate any development costs for a curved foil for an F16 then i'm sorry to tell you this: You have no idea what you are on about!




I can tell you from experience that the cost to build a mold for a curved board is a much more complex process and the costs are a lot higher in all steps, design, billet, cutting time, finishing, and even foil production. If you have a cheaper way then please let me know..




And you base this assumption on your extensive experience with both straight and curved foils?? I can tell you from my time with both foils that there is nothing in current technology that makes as much difference to the performance of a boat that the change from straight to curved foils. If all else is equal (ie sail area and dimensions of the boat etc) then the curved foils make a bigger gain in performance than any other feature.

Well this is not completly thru. We are experimenting a lot with both configurations ( straight and curved ) and to be honest which type will be really quicker we still do not now. It depends a lot on the conditions ( wind , wave ). We do know for sure that in light wind the curved boards are definitly slower then straight boards.

Hans

Hans,

You would be referring to an A Class? There are several issues in using the A class as a basis for foil testing: With the class rules restricting the curvature of the boards and also the fact that the righting moment is reduced with curved boards (A Class is already narrow for its length) plus the fact that the A Class is not adding any sail area downwind. all these factors reduce the impact of the foils in a performance test.

We did many hours testing with identical platforms and changed only the foils. The results were conclusive: Curved foils were always better on a 2 person, 3 sailed boat with a wider ratio to length than an A class.

Yes , i refer to A-class but the curvature of the boards is not restricted, the only restriction is that the tips of the boards when full down not closer is then 1500 mm. There is some room there to play with and there are several different type of curves used at the moment.
I go with you when you are adding a spin on the boat , in the F16 you may have canted boards ( 6 degrees )and in certain conditions with the spi flying this is helping the stabilty of the boat. I am not sure if the curved board will work on a F16 ( i am going to try that one day ) because the boat is relative short and that is maybe a disadvantage.

The shorter the boat, the better foils should work, it would need some thinking out of the box as to correct placement as upwind and downwind would be two quite different issues, I think there was a Dutch development 20ft boat a few years ago that tried a 4 board system with straight boards, perhaps if they were to repeat that with the knowledge learnt from curved boards, they may get interesting results.

Macca it is too bad you have "pissed in the sandbox" so many times...On this occasion you actually have something of substance to say... some interesting inside insight into curved boards design as done by NACRA, unfortunately few appear to want to listen to you based on your past pointless pot stirring...too bad...I think there are some golden nuggets that could be gleamed from your experience on this particular subject.

Didn't any of your marketing professors tell you..."Its not what you say that people remember...but how you made them feel"

waynemarlow....interesting you mentioned the four board system...I was thinking of that myself...it seems like it could be the next natural progression of the curved boards...a forward and rear board that could be raised and lowered to dial in the proper lift and for/aft balance could be an interesting experiment...might think of the single foil of the current boats as being similar in principal to a unicycle and a two board boat (per hull) similar to a bicycle...

Instead of doing a "wheelie" it might translate that power into forward thrust...of course if the front foil loses lift and the rear stays hooked up...wow...talk about a neck breaking catapult...LOL

No matter what foils you put on, straight put on at an angle or curved with or without twist the thing I don't get is how do you control the foiling (even if it is only partial foiling).

It seems to me you need a way to dynamically control the stance of the boat to avoid the F20 carbon "jump", or the "dive dive dive" if by mistake you start to pitchpole. I understand that weight placement and how far you put the board down will help but it will never be as reactive as the combination throttle tiller/active wand of the moth, the trifoiler palpers or the self regulating foils from the hydroptere/white dragon.

IMHO the next chapter in multihull foiling is not in curved boards, it's on how you control them. The more speed you have, the less angle you need, so as you accelerate something has to change somewhere to keep the lift under control.

Anyway, I'm not even sure why this discussion is in the F16 forum: F16 rules prohibit foiling in multiple way so if you want a foil fix hit the gym first then get yourself a moth or a rs600 (foiling on the wire!).

Wayne, I am seriously not trying to pick on you here but the dutch boat you speak of was actually a boat co-developed with Rob White. It had the 4 boards and it never worked... In fact the guy who drove the entire project has recently sold the boat and bought something else..... GUESS WHAT

The F20 never foils as such, its not designed to do that, the C boards are there to give a minimum lift to slightly reduce wetted surface area of the hull, that minimum lift clearly can be seen when in the video with the rear down to give max angle of attack, the boat raises only a few centimetres and then when the angle of attack becomes too much, the boat settles down in the water. Note how much speed was lost from the very draggy foil at max angle of attack.

There has been some discussion within the A's as to its merits and failures and in what conditions they do work. As much as Macca states the A is not comparable, sorry but the boat speeds are not unsimilar and that is what produces the lift regardless of how much horsepower you throw at getting that speed.

This boats speed is probably as much from modern hull design learnt from the Americas cup as from its C boards, the boards are simply not big enough to foil and the boat too heavy to allow true foiling.

As with all things though there is a down side to foils ( as per the foiling C Cat experiment ), the C boards will magnify and slow the boat through additional drag as soon as they are not in optimum AOA and my guess it will be slower in the lessor sailors hands than one with simple straight boards as they will not have the experiance to know how to balance the boat as well as the pros can.

Scaling the NACRA 20CF down to 6-6" between daggerboards...or centered on an A cat with 12" wide hulls, would bring the daggerboards within Aprox 1220mm of each other tip to tip(or close to it) I have to give that one to macca...
You wouldn't be class legal

Wayne, thanks for your opinion. Here is another point of view from a guy who has some experience with the issue. (from the daily sail)

"However Coutts does believe that foil development will be significantly more important than it has been in previous monohull Cups for it seems extremely likely that at speed the foils will be lifting the leeward hull out of the water, partially or completely, to reduce drag. Among the large trimarans competing in the Route du Rhum the difference between having lifting foils and not having them is said to translate to around 4 knots of boat speed..."

You can argue however you like, but the simple facts are that the curved foils are a clear advantage over straight or canted straight foils.

I have sailed A cats with and without curved boards, and to be honest my feeling is that there isn't such a clear advantage with the curved boards. I think this is due to the A cat being more about efficiency and drag reduction rather than dealing with excess horsepower like you have on the F20 and the ORMA 60's etc. Its a very different style of boat and as such the requirements are different.

Yeah, he certainly will be in any discussion I have about Nacra with someone who doesn't know any better. especially when it comes to someone ever wanting to buy a supposed nacra f16 if one ever comes. Nothing like a company crapping on a class that they want to sell boats to. Seems odd that people are getting on the F16's sailor's cases for chiming in on the main forum. A factory rep from a company that doesn't make an F16 repeatedly crapping on the F16 class. Not one of the guys on the main forum would put up with that either.

BTW macca, can I quote you that the boards for the F20C will be 120% of an infusion board? so, Murray's price is 450$ which would make the F20C board 540$. I think that is actually reasonable, though I doubt this will be the case.

Me too, not much more than an AHPC board.

mecca aside...it is funny how we all want to be paid well for the work we do, but everyone else is supposed to work for free...like it is insulting for any boat builders to actually expect to make a profit for their effort. How many people go to their job expecting to break even at the end of the day?

own your own company? I'm happy if I break even at the end of the day. Ecstatic if I make money.

I certainly don't expect people to work for free, although I have to about 20% of the time. and this is likely to go up.
I don't expect nacra to work for free... just "truth in advertising" is necessary. besides, it is macca representing nacra. He needs to realize who is the customer. It is us, so why would he always piss us off? because he doesn't know what the hell he is doing. Yes, a good sailor, but not a good salesman.

PTP, if you are pissed off by me informing a forum about the costs and complexities of building such foils then its going to be pretty hard to make you happy... So, how about you tell me how to make you happy?

Using the Orma 60 footers and AC cup boats are a poor example, the C Cats and A Cats are probably the most developed of the boats using C Foils nearest our water line length and they really are not convinced.

The other factor no one really has mentioned yet is what happens in normal sailing wind speeds around the, 8 -12 knots band, small foils such as the F20 uses are in no mans land, neither creating enough lift to reduce wetted surface and yet must be creating drag, ( you cannot get lift without creating drag ), I do accept there must be benefit once boat speed gets to a point but in general that cannot be the norm. I do accept that the T foils on the Stealth for example can sort of defy logic.

I am a foil convertee however and I do believe all new design boats will go down this path and the more the likes of the AC and C Cats develop the foils we can only benefit in the smaller, size wise, classes.

Wayne, you just keep coming back with stuff that's simply wrong! The F20C is performing at its biggest advantage in the 8-12kt range. The foils are working to lift the boat and the leeway is minimal. As an Example here are some time from a recent regatta in NED:-

Wind 8-10kts
3 laps W/L
1st. F20c elapsed time:- 44.39
2nd. F18 elapsed time:- 54.30

I was there and can tell you the worst thing about the F20c's performance in that race was the long wait for the rest of the F18's to finish!

Did you see Steve Clark's boat in the first race in Newport? (before the crash..) that thing was smoking fast..

And to discount the development in bigger boats seems a little silly, There have been a lot of things developed in the AC that scale down very well, Have a look at the Hulls on the F20C and compare them to the floats on USA17.

I guess one could do a 18 sq and see what happens.. Or even a F18 and screw up their old fat slow is best mentality...

Well since this is a F16 forum and at this point its against the rules .. all moot and waste of pixels

Macca read the posts carefully, to repeat myself "I am a foil convertee however and I do believe all new design boats will go down this path and the more the likes of the AC and C Cats develop the foils we can only benefit in the smaller, size wise, classes ".

Yes the F20c's appears a fast boat ( sort of remember that it didn't do so well at the 3 Piers race this year ) but how much of that is hull shape, a combination of hull shape and foil or just the foils alone. I guess time will tell us one way or other.

Wayne, wasn’t it you who was debating here about making the boat easier to sail for the average and beginner sailor?
I had several foil discussions with a couple of the C class guys when the A class first began this debate. Their view was that they were not really able to improve performance effectively over straight foils in anything but a relatively narrow set of conditions. And, application to even smaller length boats like the A would make this even worse. 4 years into it and the A debate remains in limbo. Even on the 90 Dog boats the curved to straight choice followed a very specific conditions window.

Using the very simplest physics: If a curved dagger provides lift, it will do so with a bow up position theoretically reducing the wetted surface some at the expense of some additional foil drag. Place the hull in a bow down position and you have both drag and additional wetted surface as the boat is pulled down into the water. A 20 usually is more stable than an 18 or 16 but still crew skill in maintaining the proper attitude is critical to making the boat go and several orders of magnitude more important having curved foils.

At the end of the day, you have a boat that is debatably faster in certain range conditions, but is even more technically challenging to bring to its peak performance and less applicable to the new or average driver.

But you have bling and something for the technowiennies to debate endlessly on forums.

Matt, at this stage of development I totally concur with your last post. However I do feel that we are at an early stage of development and mainly through the bling factor and the marketing mens desire to be one up on the competitors, it will become rightly or wrongly defacto for all new designs.

When I was playing around with gliders in the 80's the big new thing was "winglets", huge huge debate on their worth at the time but they did prevail and all new designs have winglets of some form or other now.