sail(plane)

Rocket 44 by Grainger

Recommended Posts

they could have called it The Weta-killer! but there is along road ahead, renders are one thing and a reasonably priced, sturdy boat in production is another matter.

4.4m lenght, same sailplan, but completely different hull shapes, more like an Astus 16.5 or modern 50. Designed to fly a hull.

Tom Kirkman says he ordered one, go Tom!

https://www.rocketfactorytrimarans.com/

 

image.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Floating Duck said:

$$$ ? 

they say they are aiming at less than 20K USD. 

It´s still in development, there are almost no numbers, just length. Scaling the drawing with the length, the mast looks to be almost a meter higher than the weta´s. And the boat is all carbon

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awww, I thought it was 44 FEET! ^_^

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I look at it, the more I think: why a trimaran? If you're going to have a massive rig, full weight floats and fly the main hull, why not just a cat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, sail(plane) said:

The more I look at it, the more I think: why a trimaran? If you're going to have a massive rig, full weight floats and fly the main hull, why not just a cat?

Cats are faster but tris are more stable.

In order for the cat to be faster you need to sail it from a trapeze.  This is a high performance dinghy for those who don't want to trapeze (or capsize very often).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make the amas the same length of the hull plus the bowsprit and you would have a real rocket. 
Just saying.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All else being equal Tri's typically have more righting moment than a cat so you can apply more power (which translates into more speed) before having to back off. I don't buy the stuff about cats being faster than tris - compare apples to apples in the design. Does anything really think a Hobie 14 Turbo can keep pace with a Weta? No contest. The tri winds hands down. The Astus 16.5 will walk away from a Hobie 18 or Prindle 18-2. More righting moment.

The Rocket 44 is not quite along the lines of the Astus, Diam24, VPLP designs, etc., but unlike the Weta it's not a planing skiff. I wish it were a foot or two longer, but there is some advantage in a boat that is quick and easy to set up by one person. If the price comes in at under U.S. 20K, they might just hit a sweet spot.

In the meantime, look hard at the illustrations. I have spoken with Tony Grainger about this design. The amas have twice the volume of the Weta amas, there are rudders mounted outboard on the amas. Note the huge rocker on the main hull. It's not hard to see how this boat is intended to be sailed. The main hull will be partially out of the water the instant the boat begins to move. This allows for quicker acceleration and easier lifting of the main hull than flatter main hull designs that require an either/or situation regarding the power to get the main hull out of the water.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 Does anything really think a Hobie 14 Turbo can keep pace with a Weta? No contest. 

You sure...?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, PIL66 - XL2 said:

You sure...?

no he's right.  it would be hard to slow the hobie down that much.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PIL66 - XL2 said:

You sure...?

VYC yardstick WETA = 99.6

VYC yardstick Hobie14 Turbo 90.5

Weta  officially  = SLOW

(Lower number FASTER)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sail against them and the Weta is much faster. Check the DPN handicap numbers used in mixed fleet regattas. The Weta is 78.5. The Hobie 14 is an 86 with the 14T listed at 84. 

Lower DPN indicates the faster boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

All else being equal Tri's typically have more righting moment than a cat so you can apply more power (which translates into more speed) before having to back off. I don't buy the stuff about cats being faster than tris - compare apples to apples in the design. Does anything really think a Hobie 14 Turbo can keep pace with a Weta? No contest. The tri winds hands down. The Astus 16.5 will walk away from a Hobie 18 or Prindle 18-2. More righting moment.

The Rocket 44 is not quite along the lines of the Astus, Diam24, VPLP designs, etc., but unlike the Weta it's not a planing skiff. I wish it were a foot or two longer, but there is some advantage in a boat that is quick and easy to set up by one person. If the price comes in at under U.S. 20K, they might just hit a sweet spot.

In the meantime, look hard at the illustrations. I have spoken with Tony Grainger about this design. The amas have twice the volume of the Weta amas, there are rudders mounted outboard on the amas. Note the huge rocker on the main hull. It's not hard to see how this boat is intended to be sailed. The main hull will be partially out of the water the instant the boat begins to move. This allows for quicker acceleration and easier lifting of the main hull than flatter main hull designs that require an either/or situation regarding the power to get the main hull out of the water.

Where are you located?  I’ll put my H14 Turbo up against a Weta. 
 

I fully accept that the Weta is a better sailing boat, and not the twitchy bird my H14T is, but I find it hard to believe it’s faster. (Assuming I stay upright!  :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see a high level Weta sailor against a high level Hobie sailor head to head in a variety of conditions.  I honestly don't know who'd win.  Would be fascinating though.  I'm guessing the Weta would have an advantage with the spin off the wind, might point a little higher too, maybe.  As far as the Astus beating a well-sailed Hobie 18..?  Maybe in some conditions but I'm very skeptical of that theory.  You get some high level Hobie 18 sailors, I'd really like to know when and how the Astus beats that.  I'm not an expert by any means but I raced my H18 magnum and my multi 23 around the same ocean courses many times.  Even a hack like me, I'm confident I would beat the M23 with the Hobie 9 times outta 10.  An expert crew on a Hobie 18 is deadly in all conditions.  I'd bet money they'd smoke an Astus all day, every day.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

I have spoken with Tony Grainger about this design.

Tom, any chance you have gauged interest from Tony on building a slightly scaled up version of this design? (say, 20ft w/folding amas :D).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mundt said:

I would love to see a high level Weta sailor against a high level Hobie sailor head to head in a variety of conditions.  I honestly don't know who'd win.  Would be fascinating though.  I'm guessing the Weta would have an advantage with the spin off the wind, might point a little higher too, maybe.  As far as the Astus beating a well-sailed Hobie 18..?  Maybe in some conditions but I'm very skeptical of that theory.  You get some high level Hobie 18 sailors, I'd really like to know when and how the Astus beats that.  I'm not an expert by any means but I raced my H18 magnum and my multi 23 around the same ocean courses many times.  Even a hack like me, I'm confident I would beat the M23 with the Hobie 9 times outta 10.  An expert crew on a Hobie 18 is deadly in all conditions.  I'd bet money they'd smoke an Astus all day, every day.

Keep in mind, the little Hobie has almost no wetted surface compared to a Weta. Unfortunately, it tends to trip over its own nose. Mine is purely a toy, but with 190 pounds out on the trap, it goes like a bat out of hell. At least until the lack of volume in the floats bites me in the ass. I’ve never tried sailing it responsibly, but I’d be willing to take on a Weta. I mostly use it for vroom/splat reaching fun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

All else being equal Tri's typically have more righting moment than a cat so you can apply more power (which translates into more speed) before having to back off.

Agree but agree to disagree. When you are getting down to the length the Rocket 44 is, then weight becomes very much in the mix as does beam. Now the Rocket being 3 quite big 14ft hulls is going to be pushing that 120kgs all up if not more, (simple durability of the hulls to be commercially available under warranty and sqm of surface area means weight and that is going to add up over 3 hulls , look at the best most refined boat of that size the A Class at 75kgs without jib snuffer and spinnaker and only 2 hulls ). That puts it into F16 catamaran territory weight wise ( 16ft ) and with its jib and main combined, I would suggest round the 15sqm of upwind sail, again F16 solo territory.

Now we did a fair bit of development very early on with the F16's and in particular we found beam around the 2.5m class limit wasn't that important. I owned both a 2.3m wide early boat and the same hulls but 2.5m wide boat. Yes in anything above about 12knots of wind the wider boat was faster  ( RM means you could push harder but you could get that feeling you were on the edge that the forward part of the Ama wasn't buoyant enough, duely solved with the arrival of the then F16 on steroids, the Viper ( but 25kgs heavier ) or T foils on the rudder ) but as soon as you got below that 12knots or so, the narrower boat was faster. Why, because with all multihulls of this size, you need to have as little hull drag in the water as possible and that means the quicker you can have 1 hull out of the water the faster you will go across the full spectrum of wind speeds ( what is the A Class's beam, 2.3m ). Now the Rocket 44 because of its weight and beam will always have 2 hulls in the water until probably the same approx. 12 knots or more, unless its going to have huge sails on it which will then defeat the upper wind speed handling. You then have to ask yourself just how much of your sailing takes place in excess of 12knots, its far less than you think in most places of the world. Unless it has a fairly high Ama dihedral  (clearance on the windward side ), you could even have 3 hulls in the water in light winds. 

I to went down this rabbit hole of a small Tri, built one based on all F16 stuff but with just 1 central F16 hull and sailed it just a few times, to realise pretty comprehensively that it was a lot slower than the comparable size cat and its only real advantage was maneuverability off the line where with its central daggerboard, it would give the lasers a real hard time. Those few sails also highlighted a few real problems, maneuverability on land and around the boat park, 3m was just a pain, but more importantly righting from a capsize. For whatever reason I couldn't right mine as I couldn't rotate the boat around the main hull like the Weta, the angles of pull were just all wrong with the unflooded Ama holding the boat fully out of the water. Anyway my attempt is still sitting on its trailer and under review shall we say.

That then made me realise that a baby Tri wasn't the best and fastest small boat out there that I didn't need to trapeze on until I tried the F101 which then renewed my interest in my lifelong liking of Trimarans. 

image.png.b25de297825a3a401757d815c3f6371f.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should add, please don’t think I’m talking poorly of the Weta. I’m actually shopping around for a used one. My old man struggles with the Hobie, but if I get him a Weta we can both go out and play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, with our stupid lockdown, I’m very tempted to start surgery on the Hobie. I’m currently thinking of adding cases to fit some hand me down A class boards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

List of singlehanded inshore multihulls better than an A cat:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why wouldn't you all just get A cats?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, maxstaylock said:

List of singlehanded inshore multihulls better than an A cat:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why wouldn't you all just get A cats?

 

That’s easy. $$$$$$

 

Any more dumb questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, maxstaylock said:

List of singlehanded inshore multihulls better than an A cat:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why wouldn't you all just get A cats?

 

Better at what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure you could find a used A cat that would run rings around any Hobie, Weta, Nacra, Rocket etc, for about $£E4000.  Ready supply of used equipment. You can even play against similar boats in a class.  Easier to sail, as the length makes it harder to stub your toe, Lighter to handle ashore.  Really, can't see a down side.  If you like quick multi's, can't see anything else comes even close to the grins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, maxstaylock said:

Sure you could find a used A cat that would run rings around any Hobie, Weta, Nacra, Rocket etc, for about $£E4000.  Ready supply of used equipment. You can even play against similar boats in a class.  Easier to sail, as the length makes it harder to stub your toe, Lighter to handle ashore.  Really, can't see a down side.  If you like quick multi's, can't see anything else comes even close to the grins.

The downside is easy to explain. I bought my Hobie for $1000 US about ten years ago. It’s a toy, and I’ve never raced it. Cheap fun. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of my guys here have older Acats.  Unbeatable for power to weight and easy speed.  Maybe only downside might be very light build, not durable.  A bit pricey but not outrageous considering the amount of quality carbon and performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Monkey said:

The downside is easy to explain. I bought my Hobie for $1000 US about ten years ago. It’s a toy, and I’ve never raced it. Cheap fun. 

if we start talking about 1K USD boats, this thread has drifted as far as it can from a Rocket 44 thread! it will be an expensive toy

after all the discussion, I still have the same doubt. Why not an "F-14"

Waynemarlow has a point. Compared to a weta, the Rocket has much bigger floats, taller rig, higher loads and more hardware (two rudders, traveller). I wouldnt be surprised if the all carbon construction is necessary to get the weight back to 120 kg.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, sail(plane) said:

Compared to a weta, the Rocket has much bigger floats, taller rig, higher loads and more hardware (two rudders, traveller).

Perhaps we should bring this back from the cat/tri debate and compare it vs the Weta.

Will the extra weight and wetted surface actually make it faster than the Weta? (And I mean all around, not just top speed during a hurricane...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Floating Duck said:

Perhaps we should bring this back from the cat/tri debate and compare it vs the Weta.

Will the extra weight and wetted surface actually make it faster than the Weta? (And I mean all around, not just top speed during a hurricane...)

supposedly it will have less wetted area. The rationale in their website says in light winds the high rocker of the main hull has less wetted areaa than a flatter skiff-like hull. And in higher winds, it will lift the main hull out of the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, sail(plane) said:

The rationale in their website says in light winds the high rocker of the main hull has less wetted areaa than a flatter skiff-like hull.

Totally hear ya. Problem is the Weta also only has 1 hull in the water, as the movable ballast (human) to boat weight percentage is much higher.

I.e. The Weta "should" sail as flat as possible to go as fast as possible (amas also out of the water... for the most part).

Looks faster though (in the renders), that's for sure!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wings in the render make no sense.  I've never sailed a multihull where the ideal hiking position in all conditions and all wind directions was restricted to an approx 750mm wide window at the back of the boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, sail(plane) said:

supposedly it will have less wetted area. The rationale in their website says in light winds the high rocker of the main hull has less wetted areaa than a flatter skiff-like hull. And in higher winds, it will lift the main hull out of the water.

Its certainly been thought about before, Tim Clissold with his TC601 design did a lot of computer work on such a hull after we worked out how good a 49er defies normal modelling on slow speed through the water. If you have ever competed against them in light airs with  say our F16's and A classes they just romp away in under 4 knots.

image.png.d969d308f3e88236cced987b96964747.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SCARECROW said:

The wings in the render make no sense.  I've never sailed a multihull where the ideal hiking position in all conditions and all wind directions was restricted to an approx 750mm wide window at the back of the boat.

Agreed that for most conditions the wings are not needed.  But if they can be rigged in when not needed for hiking, they would serve as very nice backrests.  Seems a lot of wasted weight, though, for a rocket.  I think they will also find that they won't need the traveler to be quite so long.  Perhaps the real design impetus is to make a less wet ride than a weta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Waynemarlow said:

Its certainly been thought about before, Tim Clissold with his TC601 design did a lot of computer work on such a hull after we worked out how good a 49er defies normal modelling on slow speed through the water. If you have ever competed against them in light airs with  say our F16's and A classes they just romp away in under 4 knots.

image.png.d969d308f3e88236cced987b96964747.png

Now I`m totally confused!

What I see in the renders is a narrow high rocker hull (Diam 24, Multi 23, Mod 70- like). The opposite of a flatter, wider, hull (Weta, 49er in a more extreme case). I don`t know in which bucket to put the TC601?? 

What I think Grainger implies in the website is the Rocket44 will NOT work like a Weta.

(confused emoji)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, sail(plane) said:

Now I`m totally confused!

What I see in the renders is a narrow high rocker hull (Diam 24, Multi 23, Mod 70- like). The opposite of a flatter, wider, hull (Weta, 49er in a more extreme case). I don`t know in which bucket to put the TC601?? 

What I think Grainger implies in the website is the Rocket44 will NOT work like a Weta.

(confused emoji)

To get the accommodation / cabin into a 20ft hull ( Tris like the Pulse 600 are very slender in comparison maybe 12:1 ) the TC601 almost mimics the underwater shape of the 49er to get enough width, just a tad longer. Its the slenderness and low weight on most racing multi's that traditionally give speed across all ranges of speed, some hull shapes such as the 49er seem to defy that, so Clissold has combined the two to get the load carrying / shortness of length and yet will still go pretty well at slow speeds.

Grainger has obviously worked along the same lines to be able to carry 90kgs of skipper + masts and sails, all on 14ft.

IMG_1358.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compare the TC601 to the Pulse I think its over 350mm wider at the back end Than the Pulse below.

IMG_0378.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a photo of my SeaRail's stern.  But for reference, the corner to corner distance between hull bottom corners is 30 cm; the corner to corner distance of the walking surface is 45 cm.  It has an angle profile similar to the TC601.  

20200328_103517 - Edited.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Waynemarlow said:

To get the accommodation / cabin into a 20ft hull ( Tris like the Pulse 600 are very slender in comparison maybe 12:1 ) the TC601 almost mimics the underwater shape of the 49er to get enough width, just a tad longer. Its the slenderness and low weight on most racing multi's that traditionally give speed across all ranges of speed, some hull shapes such as the 49er seem to defy that, so Clissold has combined the two to get the load carrying / shortness of length and yet will still go pretty well at slow speeds.

Grainger has obviously worked along the same lines to be able to carry 90kgs of skipper + masts and sails, all on 14ft.

IMG_1358.JPG

so Clissold did something different on the TC601 than the weta?

regarding the Rocket44, this is one of my main doubts: can it have the load carrying capacity the Weta has? in my case, the weta´s ability to sail solo AND take my wife and daughter for a spin with the same boat is great. Or will the Rocket be a pure-blood no compromise singlehander? Tom?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, sail(plane) said:

Or will the Rocket be a pure-blood no compromise singlehander?

Not at all, it will be no different than the Weta, 1 up its fun, two up in low winds the Weta is slower than a laser, all because of the old multi adage, weight is everything. If anything it will be better if the crew is willing to split the load on the 2 hulls in the water, much like the fabled way cats operate in low winds, by going down to the leeward Ama. Its not fun down there as its wet and constantly wet but it does allow the hulls to be less submerged and thus less drag.

The F16's got around this problem quite early on, they allowed only a single Uni mainsail with the solo sailors and with the addition of a jib for the two up. It sort of equalised things up but there's flaws in the thinking, in my view ( although others would disagree ) the jib has far more than an improvement in just the sqm of the sail, it has other benefits like streaming the flow over the bottom of the main which on the Uni rigs has little air flow ( look at how high an aspect ratio the A's went before foiling has halted that somewhat ) and two sets of hands are always faster for spinny's and the likes. The experiment of jib only with 2 crew always meant on the water they were faster. Its interesting that the SCHRS handicap system has now upped the calculation to favour more the single hander to the extent that now after nearly 20 years of the first really fast cat single handers to emerge, the single handers in competition handicap races, are now in the ballpark.

Tom you may perhaps want to put to the Grainger team to think along the lines of Uni only for the single handers and jibs for 2 up, it works and allows a better spread of potential owners, dad and lad in particular, dad and daughter, dad and mum and when mum can't be bothered, dad only, it works sort of well as no sail system of size or configuration ever seems to be fair to all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Waynemarlow said:

... the jib has far more than an improvement in just the sqm of the sail, it has other benefits like streaming the flow over the bottom of the main ...

  Yah, I know that's what it looks like it is doing.  But in reality....the jib - main interaction allows the jib to get a lift (point higher) while diminishing the mainsail's lee flow and prevent stall. Quoting Arvel Gentry...."  ...The jib reduces the upwash on the main (gives the main a header), and the main increases the upwash (a lifting wind shift) for the jib. Thus we see that the primary effect of a jib is to cause reduced velocities over the forward-lee part of the main, rather than increased velocities. The slower velocities in turn give reduced pressure gradients that help prevent separation and stall rather than some higher speed "revitalization.""  http://gentrysailing.com/pdf-magazines/4-Another-Look-at-Slot-Effect.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MultiThom said:

The slower velocities in turn give reduced pressure gradients that help prevent separation and stall rather than some higher speed "revitalization."

i.e. If you can actively trim to reduce separation and stall you don't need a jib (like top A cat sailors)...

For the rest of us mere mortals however, a jib helps make the main "easier" to trim.

Similar to a larger rudder or keel (less stall but more drag) vs a smaller performance oriented one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Floating Duck said:

i.e. If you can actively trim to reduce separation and stall you don't need a jib (like top A cat sailors)...

For the rest of us mere mortals however, a jib helps make the main "easier" to trim.

Similar to a larger rudder or keel (less stall but more drag) vs a smaller performance oriented one.

Always remember being on a very large 100m clipper, laying down on the front nets under the jib sails at the front ( with a cocktail in hand, the Star Clipper boats are awesome, you get to sail and the wife actually enjoys it as well )

image.png.bfc7c547932496502d67e4b726ec3c0b.png

and looking up at the tell tails on the sails ( loose seams and the likes ). The front jib tell tails were all over the place, by the time it got to the 4th they were as smooth as smooth and the sail could have been set anywhere reasonable and been really efficient.

When I came back from that holiday I tried so hard to allow a small blade jib to be able to used with a smaller mainsail in the F16 fleets for solo sailors ( mainly to allow not so good sailors to be able to be competitive as the Uni rig is difficult to get the best out of ), to try and equalise things up a bit. Sadly the class ignored that campaign and instead focused on a campaign to add 25kgs to the minimum weight to allow the then dominant boat under handicap ratings that just about fitted into the F16 class, the Viper, to be not at a so called disadvantage to the other manufacturers who could build the boats to the then class weights. As AHPC had sold more boats that just so happened to fit into the F16 rules, the extra weight was duely allowed. Sold my F16 the next week as I didn't fancy adding 25kgs to a 105kgs boat just to allow sloppy manufacturing.

But that's another story and far from the focus of the thread.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, love the interest this project has generated, time for my 2 cents from a biased aging Farrier and Weta lover, all just OPINION on the boats included ok?

Rocket 44- awesome project being built not far from me with some nice people I know involved in the first boats. It is going to be a Weta killer alright with the big floats. It was originally designed with same height rig as Weta but already that has blown out with the first rig much taller and taken from an F14 or F16 I think. One-design hence will be difficult to control. Consequently it will capsize a lot more easily, and in spite of thoughts of mast top deployed air bags, or canting rigs, it will not self rescue for now. It will take at least 2 hours to rig from trailer arrive time. My guess is between 25 and 30kAUD. So because of the rigging time, rich guys will need a big patch of expensive hardstand at a club or marina. I still want one.

Beachcats generally- yes the rotating mast and no middle hull will make them bang-for-buck fast in above 8 knots, but in my mind the picklefork market is popular for a few reasons. Firstly, they are so much more comfortable to sail in most conditions due to the ability to bend your legs into the cockpit occasionally. A beachcat with mast has a fairly big footprint even when unrigged, due to the usual maximum road towing width and long mast overhang. I still want one, and have fave desktop pics of my last 2 Nacras.

Acats - Awesome piece of evidence of what you get with open development, a few mates have them and one even let me sail a modern C board/almost foiling/ Classic, what a weapon. Like the moth, probably the worst investment in the world though with assured rapid depreciation, hence they are truly rich boy toys. And in combined fleet racing when wind gets to 20 and beyond they are absolutely dangerous to owner and any targets nearby. (But if you buy and store one for me I will use it in 0-15 happily)

Weta - on my second boat so must love them eh? They have filled a weird niche based on the original design which was based around the size mast an average adult could raise solo, and matching safe hulls that allow self righting if capsized. As long as you are happy with performance always above similar sized monos and often below similar sized beach cats, this platform lets you store a boat in less space than a laser, race in decent one design fleets, and cruise in a wide range of winds safely. In up to 20 knots I will often head off solo a long way out in the bay for a cruise with lunch on board, none of the other boats mentioned here do that in my bay at least. In my mind, trapeze and cruising just don't go together unless you are the cool but crazy Hobie 16 guys that head off to Moreton Island (at least in a group for some safety). 

Jib/No Jib discussion - very interesting, and the clipper pic sums up why safer boats have shorter rigs with more sails that can be deployed/furled at will. Hence my tick for the Weta which can be sailed with 1, 2  or 3 sails depending on the day, no reefing needed. The clever guys will explain why the Acup boats had a decorative jib the size and shape of a piece of plywood. 

Peter H                 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, plywoodboy said:

It was originally designed with same height rig as Weta but already that has blown out with the first rig much taller and taken from an F14 or F16 I think.

 

6 hours ago, plywoodboy said:

Consequently it will capsize a lot more easily,

Not necessarily so. We learned an awful lot with the F16's when they first arrived about tuning sails to depower them. We went from being fully powered up in 10 knots of wind and wondering how we would survive in 20 knots to within a season of being fully in charge at 20 knots and still racing, but at 25 knots it was getting a bit out there for comfort, all by learning how to depower a modern sail.  Now with the arrival of deck sweepers ( the deck of a tri is a perfect end plate for a deck sweeper ) and carbon masts which can be far easily controlled over an even wider range of wind strength it is even easier.

I would say you will have no problem running an A Class style rig like the one below which is an A Class sail less 1.5sqm on a shortened carbon mast. This boat was designed as a Tri with training wheels to try and get good maneuverability on the start line ( the racing I was doing was a bring what you brung off 1 start line of 30 or so boats and the Mustoos were able to sit on the start line and simply power off, which meant for the first beat the cats could be held off by the group of 5 or so Mustoos, at that point the handicap difference meant as much we lapped the Mustoos there after, we could never beat them lol ).

Admittedly with the help of a trapeze, the sail power was pretty controllable up to about 15 - 20 knots. Excuse the wrinkles top and bottom as I hadn't tightened the batttens up. 

image.thumb.png.7b8dc2afd90495ca2b5061c8192698b6.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2020 at 1:44 PM, plywoodboy said:

the cool but crazy Hobie 16 guys that head off to Moreton Island

Peter H                 

Awwww, you think I'm cool  :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just dropped these guys a line to see if there is any progress.

I've had replies from Tony and Claude saying they are still progressing with making the moulds but expecting to get first boats sailing before the end of the year and still expecting it to be priced ready to sail at under $20k USD.

Also the floats are rated at 397kg each and designed to lift the main hull so really it is a step change from the Weta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now