2016 Olympic Multihull

[F16_wouter]

The F16 makers have succesfully been running training camps and lending out boats the world over ; USA, Canada, Belgium, Netherlands, Australia, Singapore. The video's are on youtube (proof). .

Pictures or it didn't happen right ?

Canadian future Olympic-squad training on 3 Falcon F16's. They can sail hotter and you can hear the coaches say so around 5:30 , notice the accelleration when they do.



Source : http://catsailingnews.blogspot.com/

That should do for now.

 

[F16_wouter]

So it comes back to that universality and participation argument....The N17 while the most preferred boat by the evaluation folks doesn't meet many of the other bigger picture criteria (you get to test drive a Porsche, BMW and Hyundai and see which one you prefer...). The H16 probably goes too far the other way - heaps of participation but no performance.

That is just the point isn't it.

If the Viper F16 and Nacra 17 were both proven classes with an equal following around the world, comparable in purchase costs and with a permanent mixed event in the big O, then yes, the Nacra 17 would be the preferred choice when reading the ISAF report. That much is clear.

However, this is not the situation at hand. In fact, the two boat differ alot from eachother in anything but the specs. Example, for a 5% difference in hull length you also get 41% difference in purchase costs (which does matter to the amateurs who grow the fleet). For that "love at first sight modern look" you get a world fleet of 2 boats whereas the other has 250+ around and hasalready had several international events (both as an OD and as part of the F16 class). If the selection goes to one of the two then you can buy one tomorrow at a fixed price (ex taxes) in all 5 continents (boats in stock with dealors and agents). For the other you'll have to wait for production to be started up and hope you are inside the first 100 or get it before oct 2012 or you'll pay extra. For the Viper, you'll know that sail development has been performed already over the last 5 years, for the other you'll be buying a new set over the coming years as the rig is fine-tuned. Afterall, no boat is perfect straight of the drawing board. Look at the Nacra F16, that is a great boat according to the sailors sailing it, but it lacks sail drive in light winds compared to the Viper. As both boats are F16's this means that sail development for the Nacra F16 has not caught up with the Viper (or other F16's) yet.

I also hear that the modern looks of the Nacra 17 woo everyone and yet I don't hear similar comments about the Nacra F16 which is as good as identical to the Nacra 17. Is this all coming down to the paint job ? Afterall, how much difference in "moderness" is there between high aspect inward canted boards and curved boards ? 3 years ? Hell, not long ago the big O was sailed with low-aspect pivoting centreboards and everybody was absolutely dandy with that !

So the Nacra 17 has the curved boards and the promise that this holds, whereas the Viper has the proven straight boards. Proven versus promise, not a difference to be taken lightly.

Indeed, the situation is no where near as clear cut as some believe although I do understand that people typically tend to decide on emotion rather then specs or scientific facts. So yes, the Nacra 17 stands a good chance of being selected. Doesn't have to mean that it is also the best choice.

I think the selection is not only about the boat being used in 2016. The selection is just as much about the future of catsailing in the olympics. I personally much rather see a Hobie 16 selected then a Nacra 17 is that also means that the pre-olympic events are heavily contested and the big O event is spilling over with competing nations. Why ? because that would make the case in undeniable terms that we deserve to be in the big O and with 2 events as well. I'm not hot on risking another 10 boat fleet in 2016 with only the grade 1 events seeing some racing by the usual suspects. I know what the other lobby groups will use as leverage against us then. By that time we'll be out for good and that includes the Tornado for the boys ! Now I really don't think the Hobie 16 + spi is the best selection, but I will favour it over any elite cat no matter how modern it promises to be.

Funny really, ISAF states they wanted an mixed boat that was affordable and accesible like a laser and that could bring in new nations and women into the cat event. What do they do ? Select the second most expansive cat in the series (after the Tornado) which is also without a fleet in the world and will see the new nations wait for another year before they can get one ? That is after the rich nations have theirs delivered. I know love at first sight can cloud judgement, but this is going a little over board.

WIth these views I say that the Viper is the best choice when considering all aspects of the situation. That includes both the small picture (sailors views) as well as the big picture (new nations and growing catsailing to 2 events in the big O) . The Viper strikes the best balance between all criteria and when O-sailors where happy with low aspect pivoting centreboards in the past then they sure as well will be happy with the next best thing relative to curved boards.

Wouter

 

[drew584]

So it comes back to that universality and participation argument....The N17 while the most preferred boat by the evaluation folks doesn't meet many of the other bigger picture criteria (you get to test drive a Porsche, BMW and Hyundai and see which one you prefer...). The H16 probably goes too far the other way - heaps of participation but no performance.

That is just the point isn't it.

If the Viper F16 and Nacra 17 were both proven classes with an equal following around the world, comparable in purchase costs and with a permanent mixed event in the big O, then yes, the Nacra 17 would be the preferred choice when reading the ISAF report. That much is clear.

However, this is not the situation at hand. In fact, the two boat differ alot from eachother in anything but the specs. Example, for a 5% difference in hull length you also get 41% difference in purchase costs (which does matter to the amateurs who grow the fleet). For that "love at first sight modern look" you get a world fleet of 2 boats whereas the other has 250+ around and hasalready had several international events (both as an OD and as part of the F16 class). If the selection goes to one of the two then you can buy one tomorrow at a fixed price (ex taxes) in all 5 continents (boats in stock with dealors and agents). For the other you'll have to wait for production to be started up and hope you are inside the first 100 or get it before oct 2012 or you'll pay extra. For the Viper, you'll know that sail development has been performed already over the last 5 years, for the other you'll be buying a new set over the coming years as the rig is fine-tuned. Afterall, no boat is perfect straight of the drawing board. Look at the Nacra F16, that is a great boat according to the sailors sailing it, but it lacks sail drive in light winds compared to the Viper. As both boats are F16's this means that sail development for the Nacra F16 has not caught up with the Viper (or other F16's) yet.

I also hear that the modern looks of the Nacra 17 woo everyone and yet I don't hear similar comments about the Nacra F16 which is as good as identical to the Nacra 17. Is this all coming down to the paint job ? Afterall, how much difference in "moderness" is there between high aspect inward canted boards and curved boards ? 3 years ? Hell, not long ago the big O was sailed with low-aspect pivoting centreboards and everybody was absolutely dandy with that !

So the Nacra 17 has the curved boards and the promise that this holds, whereas the Viper has the proven straight boards. Proven versus promise, not a difference to be taken lightly.

Indeed, the situation is no where near as clear cut as some believe although I do understand that people typically tend to decide on emotion rather then specs or scientific facts. So yes, the Nacra 17 stands a good chance of being selected. Doesn't have to mean that it is also the best choice.

I think the selection is not only about the boat being used in 2016. The selection is just as much about the future of catsailing in the olympics. I personally much rather see a Hobie 16 selected then a Nacra 17 is that also means that the pre-olympic events are heavily contested and the big O event is spilling over with competing nations. Why ? because that would make the case in undeniable terms that we deserve to be in the big O and with 2 events as well. I'm not hot on risking another 10 boat fleet in 2016 with only the grade 1 events seeing some racing by the usual suspects. I know what the other lobby groups will use as leverage against us then. By that time we'll be out for good and that includes the Tornado for the boys ! Now I really don't think the Hobie 16 + spi is the best selection, but I will favour it over any elite cat no matter how modern it promises to be.

Funny really, ISAF states they wanted an mixed boat that was affordable and accesible like a laser and that could bring in new nations and women into the cat event. What do they do ? Select the second most expansive cat in the series (after the Tornado) which is also without a fleet in the world and will see the new nations wait for another year before they can get one ? That is after the rich nations have theirs delivered. I know love at first sight can cloud judgement, but this is going a little over board.

WIth these views I say that the Viper is the best choice when considering all aspects of the situation. That includes both the small picture (sailors views) as well as the big picture (new nations and growing catsailing to 2 events in the big O) . The Viper strikes the best balance between all criteria and when O-sailors where happy with low aspect pivoting centreboards in the past then they sure as well will be happy with the next best thing relative to curved boards.

Wouter

Finally someone with some rational thoughts on the whole process. Thanks for your insight.

 

[Tornado-Cat]

I don't understand you, ... why will the grass roots move the N17? The cool factor?

It will be the Olympic boat... just like the Tornado with less impact on us.. Do we actually agree?

Humm. Most Clubs already have F14, 16 for the kids and wouldl probably buy one or two N17 for their best elements. On the other side "Dad and Mom" would do the same for the kids who want both a fun boat and racing boat.

 

[Tornado-Cat]

I agree that women can either crew or helm, but if the N17 was chosen as a women only class, would the ideal weight mean that it would severely limit the number of all women crew who could sail it? Would we end up with another 470, where most countries are really struggling to find female crew who are big enough.

Thanks to....highlight a decisive advantage for the N17. Have a look at the appendix at "your weight suitability". The N17 score 69% good and the Viper only 55%. Which means that the N17 is better suited as a possible later female only boat.

 

[Tornado-Cat]

"Now, if Isaf had really been willing to have a grass root cat they would have chosen the F18 which is the most commonly seen on beaches and in races (Texel and Eurocat are good examples). "

1) Talking about grass roots sailing. There were 30+ F16's at Carnac racing this weekend (Viper, Falcon, Nacra and Bimare),

 

2) Especially when the difference is typified by 10 inches hull length and 1% or 2% speed difference.

 

3) I say the mixed teams have already decided for themselves, they are not flocking to the F18 or Tornado class and the Nacra 17 is still a maybe in this respect.

 

4) With the significant purchase prize difference and the huge head start of the F16's

1) 30 within 160 boats which is a proof it is not and will not be grass root (otherwise it would have already been)

2) How can you come back on this false point already discussed here. All figures show difference of 10 % up to 25% which is highly significant.

3) Wrong, ots are sailing mixed on the T, and not only Roland. Why not on the N17 ?

4) iIf your point had been true the F16, one of the oldest class with the HB16, would now be the first class and it is not the case.

 

[F16_wouter]

Thanks to....highlight a decisive advantage for the N17. Have a look at the appendix at "your weight suitability". The N17 score 69% good and the Viper only 55%. Which means that the N17 is better suited as a possible later female only boat.

Half the votes come from males and the votes favour the Nacra 17 (69%) in "your weight suitability" with the F16's (Nacra / AHPC) being rated 2nd (56%) and 3rd (55%) with all others further down the list. A whooping 13 points difference (19%) difference ? Makes me wonder how you would qualify the Tornado at minus 39 points (at 30%).

By the same (errornous) reasoning you can also argue that the F16's are better all male boats then the F18 and Tornado, which are respectively (well) below 50%.

Aren't statistics great ?

 

[Tornado-Cat]

Thanks to....highlight a decisive advantage for the N17. Have a look at the appendix at "your weight suitability". The N17 score 69% good and the Viper only 55%. Which means that the N17 is better suited as a possible later female only boat.

Half the votes come from males and the votes favour the Nacra 17 (69%) in "your weight suitability" with the F16's (Nacra / AHPC) being rated 2nd (56%) and 3rd (55%) with all others further down the list. A whooping 13 points difference (19%) difference ? Makes me wonder how you would qualify the Tornado at minus 39 points (at 30%).

By the same (errornous) reasoning you can also argue that the F16's are better all male boats then the F18 and Tornado, which are respectively (well) below 50%.

Aren't statistics great ?

^^^Stop spinning. Half the votes come from females, do you support the fact that the N17 is better suited for them ?

 

[F16_wouter]

"Now, if Isaf had really been willing to have a grass root cat they would have chosen the F18 which is the most commonly seen on beaches and in races (Texel and Eurocat are good examples). "

1) Talking about grass roots sailing. There were 30+ F16's at Carnac racing this weekend (Viper, Falcon, Nacra and Bimare),

 

2) Especially when the difference is typified by 10 inches hull length and 1% or 2% speed difference.

 

3) I say the mixed teams have already decided for themselves, they are not flocking to the F18 or Tornado class and the Nacra 17 is still a maybe in this respect.

 

4) With the significant purchase prize difference and the huge head start of the F16's

1) 30 within 160 boats which is a proof it is not and will not be grass root (otherwise it would have already been)

2) How can you come back on this false point already discussed here. All figures show difference of 10 % up to 25% which is highly significant.

3) Wrong, ots are sailing mixed on the T, and not only Roland. Why not on the N17 ?

4) iIf your point had been true the F16, one of the oldest class with the HB16, would now be the first class and it is not the case.

Yes you're right TC

The fact that since the start of this year 2012 the F16 class (incl. many Vipers) has had 20 boats at Tradewinds USA (bigger the F18), 7 at the Thai regatta (next biggest to F18) in Asia, then 15 at Spring Fever USA (bigger then F18), 30+ at Carnac France Europe (majority in C1, smaller then F18 but bigger then all others) and a similar number at the Aussie nationals means we are simply a fantasy. As such we can't hold a candle to the N17 or the widely popular Tornado class. I hear the latter just completed a 5 boat regatta on a man-made pont inside the city of Praque. Wow ! My hat off to them.

Please do not forget to file a complaint with God the next time you see him. Apparently he doesn't understand that a 10%-25% performance advantage doesn't translate into getting beaten over the line 4 times out of 6 races in light winds. (as happened at the ISAF trials) Be kind to him TC, he is getting a bit old you know, just like you.

Funny enough, I once took my mother along on my Prindle 16 (just like Roland does) and at the time it never occured to me that that would make the P16 the next best thing to sliced bread. I guess my mind is funny that way. Ahh well, a missed opportunity I guess.

What I do know for certain, however, is that the Hobie 16 does not comply to the F16 class rules and is therefor not an F16. Interestingly enough the F16 class was larger then the H16 class in all above named events INCLUDING the Carnac regatta (only 18 HC16's there with Vipers already numbering more). So indeed TC , what is exactly your point ?

 

[Tony-F18]

Wouter: Is it fair to quote F16 numbers and put them equal to Viper numbers? (Even though the majority of them probably are Viper).

The ISAF selection is about the AHPC Viper after all, not F16 in general.

The Hobie Tiger is an F18, but that doesn't make all F18s Tigers if you know what I mean.

 

[F16_wouter]

Wouter: Is it fair to quote F16 numbers and put them equal to Viper numbers? (Even though the majority of them probably are Viper).

The ISAF selection is about the AHPC Viper after all, not F16 in general.

The Hobie Tiger is an F18, but that doesn't make all F18s Tigers if you know what I mean.

There was a comment about how the Tiger should be chosen as the F18 class ... ... + grass roots ... ... etc

My reply with the F16's was along the same line of reasoning. So in this case, yes I think my comments are fair.

However, as a matter of fact, the total number of F16's is higher then 250 as that number I took from the ISAF report about the Viper (to be safe) and is NOT the sum of all F16's.

With the Taipans, Stealths, Blades, Falcons, Vipers, homebuilds and now also the Nacra's, Bimare's, Aquaraptors and Cirrus Q the number of F16's around the world is above 450 and growing significantly. See my earlier quote by Gunnar Larsen. Nacra had to ramp up production of their Nacra F16 to meet world wide demand.

 

[narecet]

What I do know for certain, however, is that the Hobie 16 does not comply to the F16 class rules and is therefor not an F16. Interestingly enough the F16 class was larger then the H16 class in all above named events INCLUDING the Carnac regatta (only 18 HC16's there with Vipers already numbering more). So indeed TC , what is exactly your point ?

From reading only this forum one could think that maybe TC is just a guy that really can't think very well, can't really take in and process what anyone provides but goes only by what he feels, and is passionate. If that were the case, that would be one thing.

However, his posts in the AC forum show that that isn't the case. The guy is a troll. He posts positions not out of believing them but to stir people up. End of story.

This thread would have been so drastically more concise and had far higher signal to noise had he been on a universal Ignore.

Pure troll. Absolutely worthless to interact with (find one exchange that shows different!)

 

[maritimesailski]

This email is floating around, not sure if it was posted here. It is from Darren B, granted he is an AHPC dealer, but he has some "street cred" to his name as well:

Hi Dick, Hi Jason,

I am touching base with you regarding the Evaluation report on the Mixed

Multihull.

The multihull report has been troubling me for some time. I am now at the

Eurocat regatta in France and obviously the report is a hot subject here and

most of all the sailors are amazed at how one sided the report was. We feel

a few things need to be addressed as there are statements in the report that

simply are incorrect and need to be clarified.

Eurocat is one of the major European cat regattas we have 23 Vipers which 18

are mixed teams. The French ?potential Olympic Squad? are competing and had

a training camp prior to the regatta on Vipers.

There are 2 Nacra F16?s and zero Nacra 17?s.

I understand from a number of people you have your minds made up about the

Nacra17 and I can respect that, but I cannot accept incorrect comments in

the report. I hope you have not been sold just on a flash paint job and

curved boards.

1. ?Curved boards cater for a wider crew weight range? Can you explain how

this works?

I have run this by a number of designers in Oracle Racing and they are a bit

bewildered by this comment as the righting moment, sail plan

(power) of the boat is not changed by the curved boards. In fact the comment

was if anything it will reduce the weight range as the wetted surface area

of the boat down wind will be reduced and removing the advantage for lighter

teams downwind. So it will be an advantage to be heavier upwind for

increased righting moment with no penalty downwind.

As you wrote it in the report, can you please provide me with a

clarification.

2. The curved ?C? boards seem to be a hype within ISAF. In the AC, curved

boards have already been and gone. The advantage of C boards are in classes

that are restricted by a width rule such as A-Class.

A-Class also is limited to C boards as they have a rule that the board must

be removable through the deck and a restriction on distance between the foil

tips. C boards are not efficient, one of the major breakdowns with C boards

is the high and low pressure areas, as the boards are not segregated, his

results in a pressure diffusion along the length of a curved board and

decrease the efficiency of the board.

Hence The Nacra was not outstanding in the evaluation races and why you do

not see curved boards in the AC45. Plus you will not see any in the AC72?s.

Except if any of the low budget teams buy the shared design offered as this

has it. You will see ?L? boards or extreme tight ?J? boards (basically L

boards). In the Viper presentation we showed L boards that had been tested

for the future which are easily fitted in straight ?standard? cases, this

was not mentioned in your report. If you pick a boat with straight boards,

you still have the option to go in different directions with the evolution

of your equipment.

3. In your report you state ?Innovative new NACRA 17? What is innovative

about this boat? Curved boards? 12 years ago in the trimarans curved boards

were innovative, today they are out dated.

4. In the evaluation report there is no mention of damage or broken

equipment. I believe the Nacra 17 had one capsize and resulted in one broken

mast. Why is this not mentioned? I know on facebook that Nacra tried to

cover this by saying it capsized on a sand bank and broke the mast but after

speaking to the sailors involved this weekend we all know this was not the

case. It should be have been highlighted that the Nacra

17 is not proven equipment and no one knows what we are getting. Will the

sailors be expected to replace the mast after every capsize?

5. Why was the Viper carbon mast option not mentioned in the Sailor feedback

table when it was clearly stated in the Viper proposal and we had two boats

in Santander, one with an alloy mast and one with a carbon mast. Actually

the Viper was the only boat that was labelled 1 and 2 on the bows. 1 was

Alloy and 2 was carbon. This was not the case for either of the Nacras.

In the case of the Nacra16 it had two boats in Santander, both with an

aluminium sections, but in the report it has both carbon and alloy options.

How is this possible? It was not present at the trials, but it is an option.

If the above is possible the solid wing sail that was presented should also

have been an option for the Viper as it was in our presentation.

6. Has any one checked the information provided by the manufactures? I read

that CMI have produced 500 Nacras of different types in the past

2 years after speaking with John Higham from CMI they have produced 500

multihulls which also include 120 Vipers and other classes.

Nacra sailing schools? Where do we find these? I believe we presented the

Viper strike, youth pathways and training schemes in our presentation but

these fail to get a mention in the Evaluation report.

6. I notice the Viper is always listed as the Viper F16. The Viper is not a

Formula 16. It is a one design class. It is true the Viper fits into the F16

rules and therefore it can compete at their regattas but the class has

chosen not to be involved as a development class, hence why the class

applied to be a ISAF One Design class. I feel your following statement is

aimed at the Viper ?the Nacra 17 is therefore not subject to development

pressures to remain competitive within a box rule.? What pressures does the

Viper have if it?s a one design class?

7. Can you please justify why the Viper got the statement ?Platform not as

stiff as some other boats tested? and other boats such as the Nacra failed

to get this. The Viper is known to be extremely stiff compared to the Nacra

F18, Nacra F16 which use the same beams as the Nacra 17.

8. In the report about the Viper there was the statement ?The MNA sailor

feedback was that some felt that they were at the upper limit of the

competitive combined crew weight.? This would be expected as many of the MNA

sailors were out of the desired weight range but this was not mentioned in

the report.

Also in the report there is a statement some teams ?felt that the optimal

crew weights will drop as more teams get familiar with the boat?

The Viper has had proven results over the past 2 years with extremely well

trained teams and sailors with Olympic backgrounds and world standard and

the results are undisputed that Viper fits the desired weight range.

9. Finally, the report highlighted that the Viper would be better off with a

telescopic tiller. This is purely a personal preference and is totally

irrelevant information. Actually I would be extremely surprised if a sailor

of Olympic calibre will use a adjustable tiller at the Olympic games. In the

Tornado class we all changed to fixed tillers or used the Marstom adjustable

tiller as it was light but the adjustable parts were epoxied together. A

telescopic tiller is mostly sold to the less experienced sailors. Top

experienced multihull sailors mainly use non adjustable tillers. Adjustable

tillers are fragile and dangerous when ducking another boat and the adjuster

is not locked correctly.

It would be ideal to get your clarification before I leave Carnac as the

sailors would like some feedback.

Regards

Darren

 

[macca]

I have thrown in a few comments in red below, I think its pretty funny to see that the underdog status is switched here...

This email is floating around, not sure if it was posted here. It is from Darren B, granted he is an AHPC dealer, but he has some "street cred" to his name as well:

Hi Dick, Hi Jason,

I am touching base with you regarding the Evaluation report on the Mixed

Multihull.

The multihull report has been troubling me for some time. I am now at the

Eurocat regatta in France and obviously the report is a hot subject here and

most of all the sailors are amazed at how one sided the report was. We feel

a few things need to be addressed as there are statements in the report that

simply are incorrect and need to be clarified.

Eurocat is one of the major European cat regattas we have 23 Vipers which 18

are mixed teams. The French ?potential Olympic Squad? are competing and had

a training camp prior to the regatta on Vipers.

There are 2 Nacra F16?s and zero Nacra 17?s. Does it matter how many of each boat was present? The ISAF Trials were tasked with finding the best boat regardless of whether it existed already or was a new design

I understand from a number of people you have your minds made up about the

Nacra17 and I can respect that, but I cannot accept incorrect comments in

the report. I hope you have not been sold just on a flash paint job and

curved boards.

1. ?Curved boards cater for a wider crew weight range? Can you explain how

this works?

I have run this by a number of designers in Oracle Racing and they are a bit

bewildered by this comment as the righting moment, sail plan

(power) of the boat is not changed by the curved boards. In fact the comment

was if anything it will reduce the weight range as the wetted surface area

of the boat down wind will be reduced and removing the advantage for lighter

teams downwind. So it will be an advantage to be heavier upwind for

increased righting moment with no penalty downwind.

As you wrote it in the report, can you please provide me with a

clarification.

2. The curved ?C? boards seem to be a hype within ISAF. In the AC, curved

boards have already been and gone. The advantage of C boards are in classes

that are restricted by a width rule such as A-Class.

A-Class also is limited to C boards as they have a rule that the board must

be removable through the deck and a restriction on distance between the foil

tips. C boards are not efficient, one of the major breakdowns with C boards

is the high and low pressure areas, as the boards are not segregated, his

results in a pressure diffusion along the length of a curved board and

decrease the efficiency of the board.

Hence The Nacra was not outstanding in the evaluation races and why you do

not see curved boards in the AC45. Plus you will not see any in the AC72?s.

Except if any of the low budget teams buy the shared design offered as this

has it. You will see ?L? boards or extreme tight ?J? boards (basically L

boards). In the Viper presentation we showed L boards that had been tested

for the future which are easily fitted in straight ?standard? cases, this

was not mentioned in your report. If you pick a boat with straight boards,

you still have the option to go in different directions with the evolution

of your equipment. Curved boards are not used on the AC45 for the simple fact that there was a very short production lead time and the simple option was taken. As for the use of curved boards on th AC72 it is due to the NOR item stipulating a very short time frame for raising the windward foil after tacks and gybes. This is the major contributing factor to foil config on these boats. As far as I know there are no such limitations on the ISAF trail...

3. In your report you state ?Innovative new NACRA 17? What is innovative

about this boat? Curved boards? 12 years ago in the trimarans curved boards

were innovative, today they are out dated. Curved boards (normal C style) may well be outdated... there are some very clever options arising now..

4. In the evaluation report there is no mention of damage or broken

equipment. I believe the Nacra 17 had one capsize and resulted in one broken

mast. Why is this not mentioned? I know on facebook that Nacra tried to

cover this by saying it capsized on a sand bank and broke the mast but after

speaking to the sailors involved this weekend we all know this was not the

case. It should be have been highlighted that the Nacra

17 is not proven equipment and no one knows what we are getting. Will the

sailors be expected to replace the mast after every capsize? The Viper mast is not known for being particularly robust.... It has a very bad reputation for failing in normal sailing conditions.

5. Why was the Viper carbon mast option not mentioned in the Sailor feedback

table when it was clearly stated in the Viper proposal and we had two boats

in Santander, one with an alloy mast and one with a carbon mast. Actually

the Viper was the only boat that was labelled 1 and 2 on the bows. 1 was

Alloy and 2 was carbon. This was not the case for either of the Nacras.

In the case of the Nacra16 it had two boats in Santander, both with an

aluminium sections, but in the report it has both carbon and alloy options.

How is this possible? It was not present at the trials, but it is an option.

If the above is possible the solid wing sail that was presented should also

have been an option for the Viper as it was in our presentation.

6. Has any one checked the information provided by the manufactures? I read

that CMI have produced 500 Nacras of different types in the past

2 years after speaking with John Higham from CMI they have produced 500

multihulls which also include 120 Vipers and other classes.

Nacra sailing schools? Where do we find these? I believe we presented the

Viper strike, youth pathways and training schemes in our presentation but

these fail to get a mention in the Evaluation report.

6. I notice the Viper is always listed as the Viper F16. The Viper is not a

Formula 16. It is a one design class. It is true the Viper fits into the F16

rules and therefore it can compete at their regattas but the class has

chosen not to be involved as a development class, hence why the class

applied to be a ISAF One Design class. I feel your following statement is

aimed at the Viper ?the Nacra 17 is therefore not subject to development

pressures to remain competitive within a box rule.? What pressures does the

Viper have if it?s a one design class?

7. Can you please justify why the Viper got the statement ?Platform not as

stiff as some other boats tested? and other boats such as the Nacra failed

to get this. The Viper is known to be extremely stiff compared to the Nacra

F18, Nacra F16 which use the same beams as the Nacra 17. The times I have sailed a Viper I have noted that it is not a stiff platform, even compared to older F18's.

8. In the report about the Viper there was the statement ?The MNA sailor

feedback was that some felt that they were at the upper limit of the

competitive combined crew weight.? This would be expected as many of the MNA

sailors were out of the desired weight range but this was not mentioned in

the report. Doesn't this tell us all that the weight range is incorrect!!!!!

Also in the report there is a statement some teams ?felt that the optimal

crew weights will drop as more teams get familiar with the boat?

The Viper has had proven results over the past 2 years with extremely well

trained teams and sailors with Olympic backgrounds and world standard and

the results are undisputed that Viper fits the desired weight range. The Laser class and Radial had many years of extremely high level competition before they were selected as Olympic classes and once they stepped up to that level the competitive weight ranges dropped by around 7kg, so it is understandable to think that the weights on the Viper which is operating at a much lower level will drop if Olympic level sailors start to sail for the games.

9. Finally, the report highlighted that the Viper would be better off with a

telescopic tiller. This is purely a personal preference and is totally

irrelevant information. Actually I would be extremely surprised if a sailor

of Olympic calibre will use a adjustable tiller at the Olympic games. In the

Tornado class we all changed to fixed tillers or used the Marstom adjustable

tiller as it was light but the adjustable parts were epoxied together. A

telescopic tiller is mostly sold to the less experienced sailors. Top

experienced multihull sailors mainly use non adjustable tillers. Adjustable

tillers are fragile and dangerous when ducking another boat and the adjuster

is not locked correctly.Amsterdam X40 event is clearly still fresh in Bundy's mind...

It would be ideal to get your clarification before I leave Carnac as the

sailors would like some feedback.

Regards

Darren

 

[Tcatman]

[The Laser class and Radial had many years of extremely high level competition before they were selected as Olympic classes and once they stepped up to that level the competitive weight ranges dropped by around 7kg, so it is understandable to think that the weights on the Viper which is operating at a much lower level will drop if Olympic level sailors start to sail for the games.

Well.. that was a useless set of snarky comments... The only relevant thing to comment on is ... Your usual assertion that vipers are too small because the crew weights will drop.... NOW... you provide the reference.

Bullshit... THIS IS YOUR DATA to support the drop of crew weights.... a SINGLE HANDED BOAT NON TRAP BOAT ???

1) So... How do you figure the multihull sailors AT THESE TRIALS have any experience testifying to the "drop in Olympic Crew Weight".??. ON A LASER??? .. Me thinks... the beach propaganda worked.

The standing bias of any group of sailors with 1/2 men will be... BIGGER BETTER BADDER. There is no empirical way... that anyone could claim actual data supporting max crew weight for Viper... OR min crew weight for the N17! AT THESE TRIALS.

If the Figora led committee made this assertion in their report... they damn well better have relevant data... IF they are reporting the beach propoganda.... Well it should be seen for what it actually is.

2) Why do you think laser data is relevant to ANY double handed boat... especially twin trap boats..

If you want to make this case... you should have data on the Tornado switch from sloop single trap to double trap spin.

AND ..data from the 49ner class demonstrating the persistent drop in weight. Otherwise... I call BS.

Show me some data...

 

[macca]

Its widely available information that the optimum weights dropped in the laser classes upon gaining Olympic status, same for the 49er. I don't really care enough about the whole mess to dig it up, but i'm sure someone will be able to do it.

Enjoy the political suckfest that is about to explode in the next days, I am happy not to be involved!!

 

[F16_wouter]

The Viper mast is not known for being particularly robust.... It has a very bad reputation for failing in normal sailing conditions.

...

. The times I have sailed a Viper I have noted that it is not a stiff platform, even compared to older F18's.

The first remark is just utter BS and you know it.

The second is not supported by the tests we've done a few years back. That is in the day the "older F18's" like Tigers (with subdecks etc), Nacra F18's and Infusions mk1 were still brand new and the latest "must have" things. The Viper was (noticeably) stiffer, so that puts the lie to "even compared to older F18's".

Now I can't speak for the newer F18's like the Cirrus R, but even IF that one is stiffer then the Viper is by no means flexible.

Disclaimer, That fact that I don't comment on your other remarks doesn't imply I agree with you there. It just seems to me that commenting on those is a waste of time.

 

[Tcatman]

The test pilots were many things... BUT

The skill and experience level in skiffs or Multihulls was not controlled.

The Olympic campaign experience was not controlled

They represented the major sailing nations... Not the entire world.

The weight range of the sailors ???

The weight range + experience ???

All votes were equal.... sometimes... the #s did not add up.

 

 

Many of these were critiques leveled BEFORE the trials even started. Now... ISAF did the best they could... BUT that does not mean that tablets were handed down from god that picks a boat.

As soon as you read the report critically as bundy just does and choose to take it beyond... "We liked 2 of the boats." the limitations of the test pilots is clear. They have no skill in critical evaluation.... they are opinion generators.. nothing more...

For example... if you have an OPINION on boat stiffness... great... This trial should have empirical DATA on this factor if you want to bring it up as a decision maker.

(Do they report crew weights M/F... not that I have seen) All we know is that Nacra had no woman on the mfr team and nobody to sail the boats at weight... what ever weight that was....

If Carbon masts are critical.... (ISAF demanded the change for Tornado)... then you should have made that clear before the trials. You can't come back and compare apples to oranges and between boats and use this as a decision maker.

The Tornado class had DATA... ie number of masts sold relative to number of boats sold to support the move to Carbon masts. Alu tubes broke with the spin far too often.... This was an honest to god FACT.... it's BS to throw out there... well AHPC masts are known to break... REALLY? ... ask them the damn numbers if you think that is an issue.

The trials generated sailor preference... Period! This is a function of who they were, where they come from, how big they were, there previous sailing experience, and what they liked. Anything more in analysis is CRAP.... The design of this trial was to collect Sailor Opinions... Which boats would be acceptable.

Answer... all of them! ... (none were found unacceptable).... some were not optimal (H16) Skiffs did in fact eliminate some boats from consideration.

HAD ISAF WANTED expert opinion.... THEY WOULD HAVE HIRED SOME EXPERTS that matched the design parameters. Asked precise questions, etc etc. They did not because the decision is based on three political decisions.

Olympics... (is the boat good enough... the laser is good enough)

Growth of Sailing (Does the boat and the ISAF structure grow the sport at the olympic level)

Grass Roots. (Does the boat grow the sport of sailing at the local level.)

 

[F16_wouter]

Curved boards (normal C style) may well be outdated... there are some very clever options arising now..

That maybe so, but those clever options are not fitted to the Nacra 17 are they ?

Its boards are normal C style symmetric foils without twist by admission of the builders themselves.

Enough said.

 

[Tornado-Cat]

Yes you're right TC...

30+... at Carnac (on 160 boats)...

So indeed TC , what is exactly your point ?

That.