Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Raz'r

Flying Phantom

Recommended Posts

I saw a class C that had the system board wand to adjust fore aft, but I think it's more efficient the system used in moth wand + flap.
in my boat I also have the system board fore-aft adjustment, similar to the FP, this can be useful when modifying trajectory and wind-wave conditions change.

3 questions about the boat:

So did they get rid of side to side adjustment of the board, i think called span adjustment?

Does it make sense to use a wand to tilt the whole board fore and aft, or does the wand have to work only with a flap?

Will they need to hide from the wind the way the AC 72s in the SF Bay did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the thing about beach cats is that they live on the beach. That means they are like the 420s I raced this summer in Normandy: pretty beat with all the strings weathered to the point of unreliability. And these were boats owned by rather wealthy folks. And that's the problem with these boats being beach cats - they just don't function that well when the systems arent cared for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ita16

 

You have a very good point. Your little foiler is the perfect beach fun machine and racing in that will be secondary, although I suspect it will happen. The big thing about your boat is that for it to succeed as a non racing, fun beach cat, the pricing has to be right, but knowing how you work, I suspect that won't be an issue. If I had a waterside property, I think I would want one at the right price! However, I would still want my boat for racing and this is where I have the problem with $50,000 priced boats that have no fleet racing and which look as if they are about to become part of a fragmented market which will reduce the chances of fleets building up. This is why I propose a box rule. Done right, it gives everybody a chance to race and if one design grows enough, it can splinter off and become a one design in its own right.

+1ps: the price is excellent if you consider that the entire boat is built in carbon fiber pre-preg autoclave at 6 bar, except the hulls, which are very rugged and built in fiberglass and vinyl to reduce costs and to facilitate repairs and maintenance costs.anyone knows the data and upwind performance of these new Flycat?

Haha - the entire boat is built in carbon - except the hulls - that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha - the entire boat is built in carbon - except the hulls - that makes sense.

 

 

It truly does make a lot of sense and as a strategy to get the boat out in front of a larger audience, it should pay big dividends. Pare expense where it makes sense and add non-complicated, easy to maintain, elements wherever possible. Give it the look and feel of the hyper expensive rides and push it forward with an aggressive price point that brings numbers of enthusiasts.

 

Just the difference in trailer types required between the S.9 and the much wider, more expensive foiler cats, is going to present real sell-through opportunities for the smaller boat.

 

When spring rolls around, I'm looking forward to this boat being seen and used all over the place by a wide consumer demographic.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Haha - the entire boat is built in carbon - except the hulls - that makes sense.

 

It truly does make a lot of sense and as a strategy to get the boat out in front of a larger audience, it should pay big dividends. Pare expense where it makes sense and add non-complicated, easy to maintain, elements wherever possible. Give it the look and feel of the hyper expensive rides and push it forward with an aggressive price point that brings numbers of enthusiasts.

 

Just the difference in trailer types required between the S.9 and the much wider, more expensive foiler cats, is going to present real sell-through opportunities for the smaller boat.

 

When spring rolls around, I'm looking forward to this boat being seen and used all over the place by a wide consumer demographic.

 

.

That wasn't what I was trying to say. The hulls are the largest part of the boat. If you have carbon beams and foils it would be clearer to say this. The "entire boat except the hulls" sounds confusing to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michele is Italian. English is his second, or maybe even third, language. Perhaps some understanding of that reality would make it easier to accept the semantic phraseology?

 

Bottom line is... did you understand what he was saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks Chris, I also hope to verify in a short time the true potential of the S .9.
many here know that I'm not a fan of hyper technology applied to the hulls, I think it is too expensive in proportion to the actual performance that can generate, it is also difficult and expensive to repair, and we all know that the hulls are subjected to impact etc. more than any other component of the boat.
however, we can start another forum, Here we talk about FP, and also some other topic that interests me because it concerns all Flycat, including my own.
we could open a forum just for Flycat, as I said above, it would be interesting to compare the data of all Flycat, especially upwind performance, which for these cat seems to be the major difficulty.

 

 

Haha - the entire boat is built in carbon - except the hulls - that makes sense.



It truly does make a lot of sense and as a strategy to get the boat out in front of a larger audience, it should pay big dividends. Pare expense where it makes sense and add non-complicated, easy to maintain, elements wherever possible. Give it the look and feel of the hyper expensive rides and push it forward with an aggressive price point that brings numbers of enthusiasts.

Just the difference in trailer types required between the S.9 and the much wider, more expensive foiler cats, is going to present real sell-through opportunities for the smaller boat.

When spring rolls around, I'm looking forward to this boat being seen and used all over the place by a wide consumer demographic.

.

That wasn't what I was trying to say. The hulls are the largest part of the boat. If you have carbon beams and foils it would be clearer to say this. The "entire boat except the hulls" sounds confusing to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ita16 you are right. It would be sensible to have a combined discussion on "flycats" rather than lots of different threads on each particular version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ita16 you are right. It would be sensible to have a combined discussion on "flycats" rather than lots of different threads on each particular version.

Why not go the whole way, somebody (used to be isaf) could come forward and set up some level rating classes, for foiling cats, so all boatbuilders could showcase their product in a competitive environment that actually meant something. World champ foiler, or, just keep bringing out different clone boats that can each claim to be, 'the tallest dwarf in the world'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to some extent wasn't this the Hobie Trifoiler approach? rotomolded hulls around a solid frame? I mean you really could go for rotomolded hulls if you you had a CF frame they bolted to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rave had rotomolded hulls over an aluminum space frame.

 

So, if one is willing to go the space frame route for loads and lightness, then why make a heavy, rotomolded shell to give it buoyancy? Why not just build a PVC cloth based bag, such as is used for a folding kayak and then have the core of a foiling boat that can be easily packed and shipped anywhere for normal baggage costs? If wear and tear are problems, there are manufacturers who are making Kevlar reinforced fabrics with PVC coatings that would be incredible.

 

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that we observed Cammas' Groupama C and discussed quite a bit with both Franck and one of her designers; in >8 knots of breeze they were able to fly upwind about 80-85% of the time. They did not fly high like they did downwind; just a few cm out of the water, but fully supported by the foils and rudders, and not by the hulls.

 

Not a clue what the FP will be able to do upwind, but not much time left before we find out.

 

 

it would be interesting to compare the data of all Flycat, especially upwind performance, which for these cat seems to be the major difficulty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to some extent wasn't this the Hobie Trifoiler approach? rotomolded hulls around a solid frame? I mean you really could go for rotomolded hulls if you you had a CF frame they bolted to.

The above is Dead wrong. Apparently you never even saw one much less ever sailed one.

 

Dr. Sam Bradfield designed his early T-foilers like college engineering projects (which is exactly what they were): Heavy but not likely to break. Their T-foils were standardized to 5 1/2 inch chord naca0012 T-foil lifters and 9 inch struts, all extruded aluminum. Sadly there was no structural carbon in boats within a thousand miles of this Florida location. ( Daytona road racing maybe, but no translation to boats then) This ended up the as the commercial Rave. Mine felt clumsy, sort of like a Hobie 16- fun even in a near hurricane and HARD to break, but beautiful engineering?...not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Note that we observed Cammas' Groupama C and discussed quite a bit with both Franck and one of her designers; in >8 knots of breeze they were able to fly upwind about 80-85% of the time. They did not fly high like they did downwind; just a few cm out of the water, but fully supported by the foils and rudders, and not by the hulls.

 

Not a clue what the FP will be able to do upwind, but not much time left before we find out.

 

 

it would be interesting to compare the data of all Flycat, especially upwind performance, which for these cat seems to be the major difficulty.

data interesting, you know how it went upwind compared to other class C without foil? How many degrees upwind, some data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well to some extent wasn't this the Hobie Trifoiler approach? rotomolded hulls around a solid frame? I mean you really could go for rotomolded hulls if you you had a CF frame they bolted to.

The above is Dead wrong. Apparently you never even saw one much less ever sailed one.

 

Dr. Sam Bradfield designed his early T-foilers like college engineering projects (which is exactly what they were): Heavy but not likely to break. Their T-foils were standardized to 5 1/2 inch chord naca0012 T-foil lifters and 9 inch struts, all extruded aluminum. Sadly there was no structural carbon in boats within a thousand miles of this Florida location. ( Daytona road racing maybe, but no translation to boats then) This ended up the as the commercial Rave. Mine felt clumsy, sort of like a Hobie 16- fun even in a near hurricane and HARD to break, but beautiful engineering?...not so much.

meh - it was the Rave... Rave, Trifoiler.... le meme chose.... Neither did that well in the marketplace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

somebody (used to be isaf) could come forward and set up some level rating classes,

 

Who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Note that we observed Cammas' Groupama C and discussed quite a bit with both Franck and one of her designers; in >8 knots of breeze they were able to fly upwind about 80-85% of the time. They did not fly high like they did downwind; just a few cm out of the water, but fully supported by the foils and rudders, and not by the hulls.

 

Not a clue what the FP will be able to do upwind, but not much time left before we find out.

 

 

it would be interesting to compare the data of all Flycat, especially upwind performance, which for these cat seems to be the major difficulty.

data interesting, you know how it went upwind compared to other class C without foil? How many degrees upwind, some data.

None of the other C boats were foiling upwind. Typically, in nearly every race, Franck would start at the boat end of the line, sail high enough to build separation from the other boats, then come down say somewhere around 5-10 degrees and get on the foils and sail 3-5 knots faster than the rest of the boats.

 

As soon as the wind got light, Canaan was higher and same speed or faster upwind. Cogito showed faster as well, as you might expect from simpler, less draggy set ups.

 

It is hard to make many more comparisons than that because the wind was so crappy and inconsistent, and because Canaan and both Hydros boats spent a lot of time being repaired instead of being raced.

 

 

The angle on the Hydros boats was too open and didn't generate enough lift to foil at upwind speeds. Downwind the hydros boats had quite a higher top end speed and lower angle, but they were highly unstable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Well to some extent wasn't this the Hobie Trifoiler approach? rotomolded hulls around a solid frame? I mean you really could go for rotomolded hulls if you you had a CF frame they bolted to.

The above is Dead wrong. Apparently you never even saw one much less ever sailed one.

 

Dr. Sam Bradfield designed his early T-foilers like college engineering projects (which is exactly what they were): Heavy but not likely to break. Their T-foils were standardized to 5 1/2 inch chord naca0012 T-foil lifters and 9 inch struts, all extruded aluminum. Sadly there was no structural carbon in boats within a thousand miles of this Florida location. ( Daytona road racing maybe, but no translation to boats then) This ended up the as the commercial Rave. Mine felt clumsy, sort of like a Hobie 16- fun even in a near hurricane and HARD to break, but beautiful engineering?...not so much.

meh - it was the Rave... Rave, Trifoiler.... le meme chose.... Neither did that well in the marketplace.

 

They were marketed incredibly badly. Hard to draw 'marketplace' conclusions from anything about the Rave/Trifoiler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the marketing was "incredibly badly" ?

 

Please be specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

somebody (used to be isaf) could come forward and set up some level rating classes,

Who?

Used to be IYRU I think, in the 1960's that set up the classes, A, B, C, D.

A Class is the only real success story. B class evolved to one-design Tornado. C class became little AC only. D class died.

B2 class was the Stingray, then Qb2 which had more sail area than that agreed for B2 class so B2 class became a joke.

Do we need to do it all again?

Does the A class allow full foiling?

F18 - F class would be a good start for developing 2 person foiling cats.

Pity about the moths, we gained a great new class but lost another great newish class (skiff moths).

Hope the same doesn't happen to A class. Is there room for 2 sub-classes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will likely be full foiling A-Cats at the worlds so long as the wind is over 15 knots. Depends on what you call full foiling though, these will only fly downwind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to be part of the I14 class. The class set itself up, registered with ISAF, and keeps it's rules up to date and ISAF provides some oversight - like when the rules change.

 

I assume it would be the same for the Multi classes, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Note that we observed Cammas' Groupama C and discussed quite a bit with both Franck and one of her designers; in >8 knots of breeze they were able to fly upwind about 80-85% of the time. They did not fly high like they did downwind; just a few cm out of the water, but fully supported by the foils and rudders, and not by the hulls.

 

Not a clue what the FP will be able to do upwind, but not much time left before we find out.

 

 

it would be interesting to compare the data of all Flycat, especially upwind performance, which for these cat seems to be the major difficulty.

data interesting, you know how it went upwind compared to other class C without foil? How many degrees upwind, some data.

None of the other C boats were foiling upwind. Typically, in nearly every race, Franck would start at the boat end of the line, sail high enough to build separation from the other boats, then come down say somewhere around 5-10 degrees and get on the foils and sail 3-5 knots faster than the rest of the boats.

 

As soon as the wind got light, Canaan was higher and same speed or faster upwind. Cogito showed faster as well, as you might expect from simpler, less draggy set ups.

 

It is hard to make many more comparisons than that because the wind was so crappy and inconsistent, and because Canaan and both Hydros boats spent a lot of time being repaired instead of being raced.

 

 

The angle on the Hydros boats was too open and didn't generate enough lift to foil at upwind speeds. Downwind the hydros boats had quite a higher top end speed and lower angle, but they were highly unstable.

thank you very much, interesting summary. it would be good to compare these data with other cat fly when they become available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were marketed incredibly badly. Hard to draw 'marketplace' conclusions from anything about the Rave/Trifoiler.

 

 

And, once again, I ask.... What about the marketing was "incredibly badly" ? Please be specific.

 

It's my opinion that the Rave and the Trifoiler are very much a collective data point in the discussion as it relates to a foiling cat. Both of them are multihulls which are not exactly common in the foiling environment, even today. Both of them had all the same issues to deal with as far as wind strength, surface conditions, maintenance, fiddle factors, hassles with launch, susceptibility to detritus in the water, foil damage and incredibly high cost of the product. Eventually, the product appeal to a very tiny component of the multihull environment signaled their demise.

 

So, unless you have something that is terribly compelling as to the "incredibly badly" marketing program, I'd conclude that your argument only has merit as a form of your typical, bitter, DOCTOR DOOM, negative persona. It would be really nice if that compelling stuff you are about to share were data driven and not anecdotal. Hence the, please be specific, request in the original question.

 

Please don't launch into a, shift the blame, or ad hominem, posture in order to smoke screen the response. Just a simple, "I have no specific data to support my claim", would suffice. Or, produce said data to support the claim. Real simple stuff.

 

I'll just recycle this post from time to time. Thanks for your kind attention to the matter.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there might be a nice difference in market timing.

 

In the early 90s, I was on a J29 or some such watching one of those tri-foiler thingies blast around the bay.


As we watched from the rail, we had no frame of reference. It was too "out there"

Today, my kids (7 & 10) could see a foiler and fully accept it as just another boat. Old farts won't accept them, hell, they still don't accept multihulls over 100 years after Herrschoff, but the kids will.

 

 

Now - will kids be able to afford them? Nope, but I bet their are enough 35 year old engineers who can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think it was a case of acceptance. I watched one of these launching from shilshole, and it turned out I knew the owner through work. So after he had some experience on it we chatted. And basically his beef was that it was fine for blasting back and forth on a reach, but that gets boring after a while. it didn't go upwind very weill and downwind was basically displacement mode and the lack of a boom on the sail made it not very good sail shaping.

 

The thing about go-fast boats is that if they are high-energy workouts, like the ITA promises to be as well as the phantom and eagle, their market appeal is limited because of the skills and conditioning required.

OTOH

if they are just "reach back and forth" kinda boats, they really need to be robust enough for rental because few are going to buy one. Reaching back and forth is fun with your SO for about 2 hrs on a sunny afternoon, once or twice a summer. Its not something you do every chance you get.

 

 

I contend that the reason you see so many dinghies being raced is because fundamentally they aren't that much fun to sail. They are uncomfortable, they typically require a physical effort and net net they don't go very fast so you can't really do "weekend cruising" in them. (sure there are exceptions to every rule and hardly lunatics everywhere, but this is the general rule).

 

And when the price point for a dinghy is the same as a slightly used bayliner - its a hard tradeoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the marketing was "incredibly badly" ?

 

Please be specific.

 

The guys marketing each product made insane claims about what would be 'normal' or 'average' in terms of performance, while simultaneously underplaying just how much of a pain in the ass they were to set up and break down. Then they claimed they were 'easy' to get good performance out of, and that was proven wrong too. Maybe had they been marketed as what they were, they might have gained some traction. But IMO they had a big mountain to climb, and without capitalization (and Hobie was a bit busy with keeping themselves alive at this point so spent pretty much nothing on marketing), they had no real chance. I have heard lots of stories about mismanaged support and service for both boats as well; not a direct marketing issue, but an important one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They were marketed incredibly badly. Hard to draw 'marketplace' conclusions from anything about the Rave/Trifoiler.

 

 

And, once again, I ask.... What about the marketing was "incredibly badly" ? Please be specific.

 

It's my opinion that the Rave and the Trifoiler are very much a collective data point in the discussion as it relates to a foiling cat. Both of them are multihulls which are not exactly common in the foiling environment, even today. Both of them had all the same issues to deal with as far as wind strength, surface conditions, maintenance, fiddle factors, hassles with launch, susceptibility to detritus in the water, foil damage and incredibly high cost of the product. Eventually, the product appeal to a very tiny component of the multihull environment signaled their demise.

.

 

The success or failure of niche products doesn't rest on quantitative data - it generally rests on the charisma of a concept and its promoter and one or two salespeople or spark plugs, the capitalization of the project, and the support of some kind of yard or factory. And then it rests on their ability to stay consistently good at all those things for 3-5 years. Do all that well, and you have a success almost regardless of the type of project.

 

The fact that you regard the Rave/Trifoiler in the 90s as a relevant data point in the discussion of a foiling cat in 2014 shows you might not be all that good at figuring this stuff out.

 

This sport's successes are generally because of one person, one family, or a couple of partners who can avoid fighting for a few years.

 

You go searching for all the data you want - it's easy to predict how these things go when you watch them for long enough and you know the players. IF you don't know the players, you don't know the game.

 

This FP is capitalized, it's got major juice behind it with all the right people, it's comparatively easy to sail, and Alex seems to have the cash to do what's needed for a couple of spendy years. It will be a fairly big success over the coming decade and I believe could sell into the thousands (a big success for a 50k boat) if:

 

-Alex continues to spend serious marketing dollars;

-The builder/support/service model is robust, well-capitalized, and transparent, and

-No major flaws show out that make the thing a big hassle, and

-No similar competitor comes out that is (pick two): easier, faster, and cheaper.

 

Look to the Bladerider and then Mach 2 for comparison.

 

Bladerider came into the market and crushed it. It was relatively easy, relatively cheap, and was the only capitalized producer of foiling moths.

 

Then the principals had a fight, the most important of them left to start Mach 2, that made them faster and easier to sail, albeit more expensive.

 

Bladerider stopped spending on marketing as service got poor. Meanwhile Mach 2 spent a fortune on early issues and warranty work and marketing.

 

Within two years of their split Bladerider was gone. Mach 2 has now sold something like 600 Mach 2s, and they are so successful that they have had to stop marketing in order to keep up with demand, and you can buy a Mach 2 today, sail it for a year, and sell it for what you bought it for.

 

But it was ALL because of Amac and the guys he surrounded himself with, combined with the guys who defected with him from BR.

 

We can tell the same story with a dozen classes/boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

They were marketed incredibly badly. Hard to draw 'marketplace' conclusions from anything about the Rave/Trifoiler.

 

 

And, once again, I ask.... What about the marketing was "incredibly badly" ? Please be specific.

 

It's my opinion that the Rave and the Trifoiler are very much a collective data point in the discussion as it relates to a foiling cat. Both of them are multihulls which are not exactly common in the foiling environment, even today. Both of them had all the same issues to deal with as far as wind strength, surface conditions, maintenance, fiddle factors, hassles with launch, susceptibility to detritus in the water, foil damage and incredibly high cost of the product. Eventually, the product appeal to a very tiny component of the multihull environment signaled their demise.

.

 

The success or failure of niche products doesn't rest on quantitative data - it generally rests on the charisma of a concept and its promoter and one or two salespeople or spark plugs, the capitalization of the project, and the support of some kind of yard or factory. And then it rests on their ability to stay consistently good at all those things for 3-5 years. Do all that well, and you have a success almost regardless of the type of project.

 

The fact that you regard the Rave/Trifoiler in the 90s as a relevant data point in the discussion of a foiling cat in 2014 shows you might not be all that good at figuring this stuff out.

 

This sport's successes are generally because of one person, one family, or a couple of partners who can avoid fighting for a few years.

 

You go searching for all the data you want - it's easy to predict how these things go when you watch them for long enough and you know the players. IF you don't know the players, you don't know the game.

 

This FP is capitalized, it's got major juice behind it with all the right people, it's comparatively easy to sail, and Alex seems to have the cash to do what's needed for a couple of spendy years. It will be a fairly big success over the coming decade and I believe could sell into the thousands (a big success for a 50k boat) if:

 

-Alex continues to spend serious marketing dollars;

-The builder/support/service model is robust, well-capitalized, and transparent, and

-No major flaws show out that make the thing a big hassle, and

-No similar competitor comes out that is (pick two): easier, faster, and cheaper.

 

Look to the Bladerider and then Mach 2 for comparison.

 

Bladerider came into the market and crushed it. It was relatively easy, relatively cheap, and was the only capitalized producer of foiling moths.

 

Then the principals had a fight, the most important of them left to start Mach 2, that made them faster and easier to sail, albeit more expensive.

 

Bladerider stopped spending on marketing as service got poor. Meanwhile Mach 2 spent a fortune on early issues and warranty work and marketing.

 

Within two years of their split Bladerider was gone. Mach 2 has now sold something like 600 Mach 2s, and they are so successful that they have had to stop marketing in order to keep up with demand, and you can buy a Mach 2 today, sail it for a year, and sell it for what you bought it for.

 

But it was ALL because of Amac and the guys he surrounded himself with, combined with the guys who defected with him from BR.

 

We can tell the same story with a dozen classes/boats.

pretty much the story for J-24s. Pretty much the story for Bieker and the I-14s, pretty much the story for the 29er, pretty much the story for the Weta, where the Swift Solo failed in this was that Bram didn't think a $30k singlehanded skiff would sell, so he never got a solid builder lined up,

 

Where I wonder is if Alex will be willing to spend that deep for that long

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He doesn't have to, orders are now in excess of 30 boats and that's only from 2 shows, no test sails or attendance at events. People are voting with their wallets...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He doesn't have to, orders are now in excess of 30 boats and that's only from 2 shows, no test sails or attendance at events. People are voting with their wallets...

 

Thats great news! Thanks, macca...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He doesn't have to, orders are now in excess of 30 boats and that's only from 2 shows, no test sails or attendance at events. People are voting with their wallets...

 

Yeah but it's a mistake to think that 30 orders means he is in the clear. That's sailboat marketing thinking, which is the same as failure in other businesses.

 

30 x 40-45k = 1.2-1.3M minus actual costs of materials/sales/warranty/service/marketing/class building = net loss. He'll have to carry those losses for another year at least if he is to match the Mach 2 success, and I think Alex is quite a bit more ambitious than Amac. Hell, the brochure I saw was probably 25k worth of design and printing.

 

We could have the same discussion about the GC-32, the SL33, and the Marstrom 32. All costing a LOT more to sell than any of the principals originally planned for (M32 has to figure out why their masts are breaking, GC32 with an entirely new foil, SL-33 no one has heard from for a while), but spending far less than an outside product developer would have recommended...and none really succeeding beyond a few boats thus far...hopefully this year will change that too now that reality has been thrust upon them all!

 

Here's hopin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The brochure was probably closer to $10k-$15k but your point is well made 30 boats is barely a starting line and they are scattered throughout the world mostly in the hands of elite sailors or programs. the first 50 are easy. Its the next 200 that are hard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My educated guess puts the ROI at around 25 boats. This is pretty normal in the beach cat world. So he will be fine, and the first boats are not even out there showing people what they can really do.

 

For the bigger boats it's also a substantial investment and one that has to be factored in over years and also required revenues streams from events and other sources to be truly viable as a business. We are really happy that our boat is designed to take any foil shape and we can move with the developments and class desires. You will be seeing quite a few fly phantoms and GC32's in the hands of AC teams very soon...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ferrari sold only 7,318 cars last year..... Ford sold 935,000 in china alone.......would you say that Ferrari were unsuccessful..... compared to ford figures they are......but in reality there is a waiting list for a ferrari far longer than fords...so clearly demand compared to there output is greater.....so which is more successful?

 

Laser sells how many boats a year?......SI sells all the boats they can produce and will probably have a waiting list for the Phantom......so who is more successful.....I know which one I can buy over the counter now and which ones demand outstrips the supply.....

 

And how much mass marketing does Ferrari do compared to Ford?......so marketing parameters changes dependent on the product and its market...

 

 

Just saying....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I would say Ferrari is much less succesful than Ford Ferarri has a market cap of about $4.7B and Ford about $59 Bil. so Ford is about 10x as succesful a company as Ferrari. Ferrari is a niche

 

now as to Macca's point of Break even being 25 hulls - that may be true of a normal beach cat. but this isn't a normal beach cat. Your tooling for the foils alone is the cost of another set of hull toolings. Add in the cost of the mechanism for the AoA adjusters (and they require some custom work to fit in that nicely and you are looking at probably closer to 2.5x -3x the normal production costs of a beach cat. And the profit margin isnt' going to be bigger. if anything itts going to be a smaller percentage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also, the success of one individual Ferrari doesn't hinge on the # of other similar models sold.

 

Ferrari cares about making money. OD boat manufacturers certainly do as well, but the money seems to come when a class hits critical mass based on buyer enthusiasm, class management, and price point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All companies care about making money....marketing and business success is a very interesting topic with no simple answers.....mass market products are one thing......niche products are another.....successful marketing and product research is completely different for each

 

I am personally am part of the market opposition to SI but I personally applaud their efforts in pushing the boundaries of production cat sailing and putting their money where their mouth.....well done Alex and your team....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is succes just about gross/net turnover or more about the desire for the companies product.......Ferrari or Ford.....no contest.............Flying Phantom or Laser......no contest....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The semantics of success is an interesting topic which we could talk about till the cows come home with no one being right or wrong........so lets just celebrate the balls that SI have shown getting their product to the market rather than trying to argue that it isn't going to earn share holders ridiculous sums of cash......the interest it has generated which is clear from the discussion going on in the threads on SA clearly shows shows it is a success even if that is purely the differences of opinion it is stimulating.....

 

 

Right here in the UK it is beer o'clock......back in a bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, don't get me wrong, I love that people are willing to build and sell cutting edge boats. I'm just skeptical when people talk of an "evolution" being a "revolution". Success for such types of things can be many different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I would say Ferrari is much less succesful than Ford Ferarri has a market cap of about $4.7B and Ford about $59 Bil. so Ford is about 10x as succesful a company as Ferrari. Ferrari is a niche

 

now as to Macca's point of Break even being 25 hulls - that may be true of a normal beach cat. but this isn't a normal beach cat. Your tooling for the foils alone is the cost of another set of hull toolings. Add in the cost of the mechanism for the AoA adjusters (and they require some custom work to fit in that nicely and you are looking at probably closer to 2.5x -3x the normal production costs of a beach cat. And the profit margin isnt' going to be bigger. if anything itts going to be a smaller percentage.

You think production costs for the fly phantom are 3x a similar sized beach cat like a Nacra F20?????? If that's the case then there is either a crazy huge margin on the Nacra or Alex is losing tens of thousands per boat..... The board tools are not cheap (if you want to scare yourself, try costing the tools for a 32ft boat!) but the phantom foil tools are around the same cost as any other curved board tool as you see on the F20. Certainly the rudder housing is more expensive to build but the phantom one actually works and anyone who has used the Nacra one will tell you they are happy to pay more for one that works! The board rake control is a very simple piece, it is made up and fits straight into a moulded housing, I think there are a total of 6 screws (all pre drilled) and it's done.

 

There are some other parts of the phantom that cost more than say a Nacra F20, but I'm guessing it's more like 20% cost difference and this is reflected in the retail pricing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was comparing to an average beach cat not the F 20. but the blade tooling for the F20 is going to be less than the blade tooling for the F18 is going to be quite a bit more, and the production cost of the board as well. If you go listen to the designer discussion at the C Class champs, the foil tools are nowhere near the same cost as for a standard curved blade. And I forgot about the rudder tooliing (not just the housing) which is dramatically higher. Remember each rudder is most of the structural bitts of a Moth foil. (minus flap and control arms). And a Moth blade runs around $5k. So minus the mechanics - say $3k/side

 

I don't think breakeven is at 25 hulls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work with the foil builder for both foiling c class campaigns and know exactly the costs for the tools on those boats, and I also commissioned the original tool for the m20 of Xander pols which became the tool for the Nacra F20. Now based on that real world experience and knowing the exact production cost of the foils on all the above boats I reckon I'm in a pretty good position to say what the differences are... And it's not so much.

 

Rudder tooling is very simple, just two straight tools and they are joined after de-moulding with a junction piece. If the rudders were costing 3k per side they would be made of unobtanium and gold plated.

 

Just look at the retail price compared to the F20, it's very close and this shows that Alex is running similar costs or he is Robin Hood in reverse...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, don't get me wrong, I love that people are willing to build and sell cutting edge boats. I'm just skeptical when people talk of an "evolution" being a "revolution". Success for such types of things can be many different things.

 

 

The definition of success is in the eye of the producer without doubt......I too dislike the terms "evolution and revolution".......I much prefer "pushing the boundaries of current technology and practice"......

Now time to open the next beer........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work with the foil builder for both foiling c class campaigns and know exactly the costs for the tools on those boats, and I also commissioned the original tool for the m20 of Xander pols which became the tool for the Nacra F20. Now based on that real world experience and knowing the exact production cost of the foils on all the above boats I reckon I'm in a pretty good position to say what the differences are... And it's not so much.

 

Rudder tooling is very simple, just two straight tools and they are joined after de-moulding with a junction piece. If the rudders were costing 3k per side they would be made of unobtanium and gold plated.

 

Just look at the retail price compared to the F20, it's very close and this shows that Alex is running similar costs or he is Robin Hood in reverse...

Well i'll bow to your direct experience, I was basing my estimates on the pricing simon and blunted have put forth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, don't get me wrong, I love that people are willing to build and sell cutting edge boats. I'm just skeptical when people talk of an "evolution" being a "revolution". Success for such types of things can be many different things.

 

Yes, it is worth keeping all of these in mind and spelling them out.. .. I focus on the "events' worth winning and competing for" Mischa H wrote an excellent piece to the A cat fleet about the "RACING EXPERIENCE" when you are foiling from his C class experience. What are the key factors that you need to hit for getting to the sweet spot? (price and technology and service are covered in this thread pretty well).

 

The A class sailors at Worlds could provide lots of input in about 10 days if they successfully foil down wind in 10 days concerning the fleet racing experience and getting to the gate at 25 " knots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I work with the foil builder for both foiling c class campaigns and know exactly the costs for the tools on those boats, and I also commissioned the original tool for the m20 of Xander pols which became the tool for the Nacra F20. Now based on that real world experience and knowing the exact production cost of the foils on all the above boats I reckon I'm in a pretty good position to say what the differences are... And it's not so much.

 

Rudder tooling is very simple, just two straight tools and they are joined after de-moulding with a junction piece. If the rudders were costing 3k per side they would be made of unobtanium and gold plated.

 

Just look at the retail price compared to the F20, it's very close and this shows that Alex is running similar costs or he is Robin Hood in reverse...

Well i'll bow to your direct experience, I was basing my estimates on the pricing simon and blunted have put forth

I don't think either Simon or Blunted have done much in the way of 'production' level stuff for these kinds of boats. Blunted works with one-offs and an owner who wants 'the best'. Simon has a real job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My educated guess puts the ROI at around 25 boats. This is pretty normal in the beach cat world.

That is exactly right, and that thinking is exactly why beach cat manufacturers are happy to sell a few hundred or a thousand rather than ten times that. How many runaway successes are there in 'the beach cat world' since Hobie in the 70s and 80s?

 

Regardless, you know i am a fan of your work and am looking forward to checking out some flying boats this summer. That's the ultimate test; if my fat, uncoordinated ass can do it, anyone can. A lot of Moths have been sold because of that fact!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be a bit of confusion between tooling costs and manufacturing costs. I cannot imagine that there is a huge difference in the costs of making the tooling for C foils or L foils. Differences come in with manufacturing costs, because of the extra loads. There is one more factor. It is far easier and cheaper to build foils for a new design (such as the FP) than it is for a class where weight is a real issue, such as Moths, C Class and A's, because with those classes getting super lightweight 9but strong) foils is really important while with a new class, it isn't a problem to add a few more kilos of carbon. The reason why Moth foils are super expensive is that they are a real pain to build so strong and so light. Looking at my class, the issue with the A's at the moment is that most manufacturers are only just managing to build to minimum weight. When you start needing foils that are bigger in area and which need to be significantly stronger, yet you have no extra weight to play with, again, costs will go up significantly. On the FP, you can solve all of this with 1-1.5 kgs of extra carbon in each foil, but on the A's, 5-6 kgs of more weight is totally unacceptable.

 

Having said all that, what we are really discussing is price and I have to assume that the pricing of the FP is such that they can make a reasonable return for their efforts. The price won't be so little as to be selling at a loss while they will be doing all they can to make the boat affordable. Therefore, I think its a reasonable conclusion that if you compare the costs of an F18 and the FP, you get some idea as to the relative cost difference of building the 2 boats. It's certainly not 2 times the price.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting predicament, that A class weight limit being tough to build to. The B class Tornados could be built well under the weight limit in carbon.
Would you speculate about whether going to a pylon system with smaller hulls would save weight?

Also it could be that a scaled up moth rig would be lighter. It looks like a tight little unit with that tri-tip spreader.
i figure you can make a super wide front beam and use the aft part of that to fix the shrouds.
Then move the bow tangs aft for the fore stay. This takes away some of the re-enforcing areas in the hulls, but adds weight to the main beam.
If you could make the sheeting and vang the same as a moth, i believe some loads would be removed from the back beam as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a debate about whether the A's really are that hard to build to weight, but the evidence at the recent Australian nationals suggest there is a problem. I personally am not sure there really is an issue, other than one of quality control, because we saw up to 6.5% difference in boat weight from the same manufacturer. To make matters worse, the differences aren't in the rigs, but only in the platforms, and when you strip away common components and look at what really does vary, you find it's really only the hulls and beams, which means, in reality, we are seeing over 10% difference in weight in these items.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is succes just about gross/net turnover or more about the desire for the companies product.......Ferrari or Ford.....no contest.............Flying Phantom or Laser......no contest....

 

Yep, looking around the world it's no contest - an enormously larger number of people desire Lasers.

 

Oh, they may have pipe dreams about FPs, far away dreams that they know will never come true, in the same way that they may have pipe dreams about winning the lottery and then punching the boss on the nose and running away with a hot 19 year old. But more people surely have real practical desires - ones on which they spend real time and money - about a Laser and a rise next paycheck.

 

I DO understand the point you are trying to make. Yeah, a Ferrari is cool and goes fast. So? If it doesn't fit into your reality then it's irrelevant and owning one is a waste. I don't want one because I'd worry about scratching it and I couldn't use it for fantastic weekends cruising into a deserted anchorage with dolphins one day and then racing picking shifts in a tight roll-tacking duel the next day.

 

The FP looks great, but why bother denigrating another products when promoting it? Sure, it goes quick - one of my classes does 40 knots+ but it's no better than the ones that never break 13, simply different. Why not respect the more popular class and learn from its success instead of taking aim at it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is succes just about gross/net turnover or more about the desire for the companies product.......Ferrari or Ford.....no contest.............Flying Phantom or Laser......no contest....

 

Yep, looking around the world it's no contest - an enormously larger number of people desire Lasers.

 

Oh, they may have pipe dreams about FPs, far away dreams that they know will never come true, in the same way that they may have pipe dreams about winning the lottery and then punching the boss on the nose and running away with a hot 19 year old. But more people surely have real practical desires - ones on which they spend real time and money - about a Laser and a rise next paycheck.

 

Yeah, the FP may be fantastic. So is a Ferrari. But in the real world a Ferrari may not be aspirational because it may not fit with the other joys of living. Over the last couple of days we sailed from a deserted anchorage to another deserted anchorage in 28 degrees, warm water and clear skies, surfed from the boat, snorkelled with sharks wearing just boardies, sniffed around another new anchorage, met new friends on the beach, startled flying fish under the bows, motored the dinghy ashore with dolphins, cooked a fine meal and drank nice wine....we couldn't have done that if we owned a Ferrari instead of a station wagon.

 

Today my aspiration was to sail the Laser in a strong strict OD fleet. Sure, we could have sailed faster stuff; gone kiting, rang around about buying another Marstrom Tornado. But none of those would have been as much fun as picking the puffs, hiking the boat flat and flicking around through roll tacks in a good fleet.

 

I DO understand the point you are trying to make, but one wonders whether you are missing the joys of the other side of life. Yeah, a Ferrari is cool and goes fast. Who cares? Worrying about such stuff may stop you from enjoying the many other wonders that are out there.

 

The FP looks great, but why bother denigrating another product when promoting it? Sure, it goes quick - one of my classes does 40 knots+ but it's no better than the ones that never break 13, simply different.

I should really have made it clear that for me personally I would want the Ferrari over the Ford and the FP over the Laser (for others that may be different) doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy the Ford or the Laser...........the point I was really trying to make is that volume sales isn't the only measure of success, as there are a number of contributors in this thread who are adamant that this boat will not be a success because it won't sell Laser type numbers......I love sailing fullstop.....I learnt back in the 70's on a Sunfish, Laser, Mirror and Topper and had my most successful years club sailing on the Sunfish in big seas and high winds (which was a lot of fun) on the east coast of England, but my passion very quickly became catamarans along with my peer group who I learnt to sail alongside.......Yes the FP most definitely isn't the equivalent of an all round practical family car, but hasn't been designed and built to be so......what is the problem with that?.....those contributors who keep saying that the market research is poor as this boat won't appeal to the masses, won't sell in huge volume and therefore won't be a success have missed the point.......the FP will be success in the market it is aimed ....similarly the Laser justifiably will continue to be a success in its market .......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Is succes just about gross/net turnover or more about the desire for the companies product.......Ferrari or Ford.....no contest.............Flying Phantom or Laser......no contest....

 

Yep, looking around the world it's no contest - an enormously larger number of people desire Lasers.

 

Oh, they may have pipe dreams about FPs, far away dreams that they know will never come true, in the same way that they may have pipe dreams about winning the lottery and then punching the boss on the nose and running away with a hot 19 year old. But more people surely have real practical desires - ones on which they spend real time and money - about a Laser and a rise next paycheck.

 

Yeah, the FP may be fantastic. So is a Ferrari. But in the real world a Ferrari may not be aspirational because it may not fit with the other joys of living. Over the last couple of days we sailed from a deserted anchorage to another deserted anchorage in 28 degrees, warm water and clear skies, surfed from the boat, snorkelled with sharks wearing just boardies, sniffed around another new anchorage, met new friends on the beach, startled flying fish under the bows, motored the dinghy ashore with dolphins, cooked a fine meal and drank nice wine....we couldn't have done that if we owned a Ferrari instead of a station wagon.

 

Today my aspiration was to sail the Laser in a strong strict OD fleet. Sure, we could have sailed faster stuff; gone kiting, rang around about buying another Marstrom Tornado. But none of those would have been as much fun as picking the puffs, hiking the boat flat and flicking around through roll tacks in a good fleet.

 

I DO understand the point you are trying to make, but one wonders whether you are missing the joys of the other side of life. Yeah, a Ferrari is cool and goes fast. Who cares? Worrying about such stuff may stop you from enjoying the many other wonders that are out there.

 

The FP looks great, but why bother denigrating another product when promoting it? Sure, it goes quick - one of my classes does 40 knots+ but it's no better than the ones that never break 13, simply different.

I should really have made it clear that for me personally I would want the Ferrari over the Ford and the FP over the Laser (for others that may be different) doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy the Ford or the Laser...........the point I was really trying to make is that volume sales isn't the only measure of success, as there are a number of contributors in this thread who are adamant that this boat will not be a success because it won't sell Laser type numbers......I love sailing fullstop.....I learnt back in the 70's on a Sunfish, Laser, Mirror and Topper and had my most successful years club sailing on the Sunfish in big seas and high winds (which was a lot of fun) on the east coast of England, but my passion very quickly became catamarans along with my peer group who I learnt to sail alongside.......Yes the FP most definitely isn't the equivalent of an all round practical family car, but hasn't been designed and built to be so......what is the problem with that?.....those contributors who keep saying that the market research is poor as this boat won't appeal to the masses, won't sell in huge volume and therefore won't be a success have missed the point.......the FP will be success in the market it is aimed ....similarly the Laser justifiably will continue to be a success in its market .......

 

Agree with all that....I just break out in hives when people seem to be denigrating the popular classes.

 

The FP could be great in its niche as you say. Sure, there may be issues with sailing through surf but classes like 14s and 16 Foot Skiffs aren't launched through surf either, and my old cat club didn't launch through surf and most of us would never have let our hulls or foils touch the sand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Is succes just about gross/net turnover or more about the desire for the companies product.......Ferrari or Ford.....no contest.............Flying Phantom or Laser......no contest....

 

Yep, looking around the world it's no contest - an enormously larger number of people desire Lasers.

 

Oh, they may have pipe dreams about FPs, far away dreams that they know will never come true, in the same way that they may have pipe dreams about winning the lottery and then punching the boss on the nose and running away with a hot 19 year old. But more people surely have real practical desires - ones on which they spend real time and money - about a Laser and a rise next paycheck.

 

Yeah, the FP may be fantastic. So is a Ferrari. But in the real world a Ferrari may not be aspirational because it may not fit with the other joys of living. Over the last couple of days we sailed from a deserted anchorage to another deserted anchorage in 28 degrees, warm water and clear skies, surfed from the boat, snorkelled with sharks wearing just boardies, sniffed around another new anchorage, met new friends on the beach, startled flying fish under the bows, motored the dinghy ashore with dolphins, cooked a fine meal and drank nice wine....we couldn't have done that if we owned a Ferrari instead of a station wagon.

 

Today my aspiration was to sail the Laser in a strong strict OD fleet. Sure, we could have sailed faster stuff; gone kiting, rang around about buying another Marstrom Tornado. But none of those would have been as much fun as picking the puffs, hiking the boat flat and flicking around through roll tacks in a good fleet.

 

I DO understand the point you are trying to make, but one wonders whether you are missing the joys of the other side of life. Yeah, a Ferrari is cool and goes fast. Who cares? Worrying about such stuff may stop you from enjoying the many other wonders that are out there.

 

The FP looks great, but why bother denigrating another product when promoting it? Sure, it goes quick - one of my classes does 40 knots+ but it's no better than the ones that never break 13, simply different.

I should really have made it clear that for me personally I would want the Ferrari over the Ford and the FP over the Laser (for others that may be different) doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy the Ford or the Laser...........the point I was really trying to make is that volume sales isn't the only measure of success, as there are a number of contributors in this thread who are adamant that this boat will not be a success because it won't sell Laser type numbers......I love sailing fullstop.....I learnt back in the 70's on a Sunfish, Laser, Mirror and Topper and had my most successful years club sailing on the Sunfish in big seas and high winds (which was a lot of fun) on the east coast of England, but my passion very quickly became catamarans along with my peer group who I learnt to sail alongside.......Yes the FP most definitely isn't the equivalent of an all round practical family car, but hasn't been designed and built to be so......what is the problem with that?.....those contributors who keep saying that the market research is poor as this boat won't appeal to the masses, won't sell in huge volume and therefore won't be a success have missed the point.......the FP will be success in the market it is aimed ....similarly the Laser justifiably will continue to be a success in its market .......

 

Agree with all that....I just break out in hives when people seem to be denigrating the popular classes.

 

The FP could be great in its niche as you say. Sure, there may be issues with sailing through surf but classes like 14s and 16 Foot Skiffs aren't launched through surf either, and my old cat club didn't launch through surf and most of us would never have let our hulls or foils touch the sand.

 

Totally understand the "hives" response, I just wish I hadn't missed that little bit of explanation when i posted the comment.....reading it back now I can see how easily it could be misinterpreted.....it to makes me "bristl"e when people denigrate any class or style of boat based on the own personal preference or agenda.......so thanks for pointing it out and giving me the opportunity to clarify what I meant....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And 14s an 16s are a class that took a very very very long time to build its numbers and basically evolved slowly to the high tech machines they are today. As a result a lot of I14s are not competitive yet race anyway. A bit like a multihull regatta where an old Hobie 18 gets to race against F18s on the same start.

 

As for Ferrari vs. Ford I'd take a Ford GTX over any of the Ferrari road cars.. the only Ferraris better (and pricier) than the GTX are the FXX which even if you buy, you don't get to take home - it lives at the Ferrari test track and you only get to drive it there, and the Enzo, which is price and performance competitive.

 

So Ford makes cars every bit as cool as Ferrari, but it ALSO makes others that are more broadly useful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And 14s an 16s are a class that took a very very very long time to build its numbers and basically evolved slowly to the high tech machines they are today. As a result a lot of I14s are not competitive yet race anyway. A bit like a multihull regatta where an old Hobie 18 gets to race against F18s on the same start.

 

As for Ferrari vs. Ford I'd take a Ford GTX over any of the Ferrari road cars.. the only Ferraris better (and pricier) than the GTX are the FXX which even if you buy, you don't get to take home - it lives at the Ferrari test track and you only get to drive it there, and the Enzo, which is price and performance competitive.

 

So Ford makes cars every bit as cool as Ferrari, but it ALSO makes others that are more broadly useful

Your choice of a Ford over a Ferrari is entirely up to you.....I have been using the Ford v Ferrari analogy with respect to a companies model being a success and what success means to the individual company...both Ford and Ferrari are successful at what they do and that is my point (I strongly believe that the FP will be a success in the eyes of SI and clearly the Laser is a success)....clearly I haven't explained it well enough for you to understand.......my point isn't about how cool a car might be (beauty and desirability is in the eye of the beholder) or wether the company produces cars to satisfy the mass market as well as its niche products.......it is about measuring success at what they do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

except I do understand. My point is best reflected in something like the Nacra 20. Precisely because Nacra makes a lot of money on the rotomolded 460 and 500, they can absorb the cost of the F 20 even if it doesn't turn a real profit.

 

The FP doesn't have that kind of safetynet to carry it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

except I do understand. My point is best reflected in something like the Nacra 20. Precisely because Nacra makes a lot of money on the rotomolded 460 and 500, they can absorb the cost of the F 20 even if it doesn't turn a real profit.

 

The FP doesn't have that kind of safetynet to carry it

 

No, you don't: Phantom International builds the Flying Phantom AND the Phantom F18.

http://www.phantom-international.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

except I do understand. My point is best reflected in something like the Nacra 20. Precisely because Nacra makes a lot of money on the rotomolded 460 and 500, they can absorb the cost of the F 20 even if it doesn't turn a real profit.

 

The FP doesn't have that kind of safetynet to carry it

So you have the sales figures for the 460/500 and the F20 and their production costs? I think not......and you have the figures for the build costs of the FP and their financial safety net?.....I think not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Phantom 18 is not a cash cow boat the way rental fleet boats are. Damn Doug you are ignorant. You really have no clue about economics of business. That's why you went and spent the $$ to have someone else DSS foils for a boat you will never build - all the while complaining you dont have the cash to finish your little toy model that you have now spent 4 years building

 

Just shut the fuck up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that there will be a couple out of a base in Alameda. For all I know, there are here already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that there will be a couple out of a base in Alameda. For all I know, there are here already.

And by "Alameda", you mean Artemis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say that necessarily, but one could come to that conclusion.

 

I talked to a guy - didn't want to out it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Phantom 18 is not a cash cow boat the way rental fleet boats are. Damn Doug you are ignorant. You really have no clue about economics of business. That's why you went and spent the $$ to have someone else DSS foils for a boat you will never build - all the while complaining you dont have the cash to finish your little toy model that you have now spent 4 years building

 

Just shut the fuck up

I think SI have built just under 25 F18's but I could be wrong. There are only two in North America currently. One in Alameda and one in Long Beach (Zebra).

Theses boats have extensive detail when compared to a typical Nacra or Hobie. The components are first rate in both craftsmanship and design. These are not mass produced Asian boats.

I would think the Flying version would be no different. Alex makes a really nice boat and you get what you pay for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And the Phantom 18 is not a cash cow boat the way rental fleet boats are. Damn Doug you are ignorant. You really have no clue about economics of business. That's why you went and spent the $$ to have someone else DSS foils for a boat you will never build - all the while complaining you dont have the cash to finish your little toy model that you have now spent 4 years building

 

Just shut the fuck up

I think SI have built just under 25 F18's but I could be wrong. There are only two in North America currently. One in Alameda and one in Long Beach (Zebra).

Theses boats have extensive detail when compared to a typical Nacra or Hobie. The components are first rate in both craftsmanship and design. These are not mass produced Asian boats.

I would think the Flying version would be no different. Alex makes a really nice boat and you get what you pay for.

oh no question on the quality of build. I saw the boat at the Salon Nautic. its very nicely put together. that's precisely why I'm dubious of the 25 boat breakeven pointt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ii know i'm a newby here, so i can f.. o...

But i just want to have a go in one. They are the closest thing most of us will ever get to the experience of an AC72.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously impressed with all the footage so far, the boat just looks stable. Next challenge, please Mr Phantom, can we see the boat kicking ass in waves too? So far, this boat makes other foilers look about as easy riding a unicycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How rad is it going to be...watching 6 or so FPs line up for the weather pin on a start? Let the good times roll! Does carnage tickle the curiosity of the audience....YES! And carnage there will be. Watching this boat just pull away from other F18s in that other viddy really shows the acceleration and speed. I would love to see a Formula 1 class developed of FPs with the best wild-man sailors in the world competing on some sort of traveling international circuit. Primetime...this is sailing like never before. I had uninterested friends glued to the America's Cup by the end of it. I think the FP has that potential. I can't wait to watch several race for the downwind mark! Gives me the goosebumps just thinking about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Included angle on the foil looks quite a bit smaller than what has been run on A's todate. Tends to suggest they have favoured stability over outright speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the c class guys discovered: it's hard to be fast when it's unstable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being unstable hasn't gotten me anywhere but jail and house arrest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, ignoring the costs, would you prefer a Nacra F20 Carbon FCS or a Sail Innovation Flying Phantom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you're not asking me, but I think the phantom would be the one I'd plop my cash down for, were I in the market

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the phantom has proven that it's sorted and clearly performs very well. Then other boat is a rendering on your screen and nothing more at this stage..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the phantom has proven that it's sorted and clearly performs very well. Then other boat is a rendering on your screen and nothing more at this stage..

Full production versions of 'the other boat' arrive in Europe in less than 3 weeks with first customer deliveries in the 2nd week of May......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Straight into delivering boats to customers before any testing?? And they say history never repeats... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you have proof of that which you are supposing, there, Macca?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone seen one in final form doing any form of testing yet??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Anyone seen one in final form doing any form of testing yet??

SI have nothing to worry about then do they........... :D

In terms of knowing that SI have done their testing and sorted the issues then I think they are happy, but the other guys with no testing, (customers are good for testing...) should be worried

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites