No it won't but on a beach catamaran you never save 20 kg in one go.

It is however an example of what Matt McDonald said in his interview. New materials and techniques will become available (come online) over time allowing a drift downwards in ready to sail weights.

I will keep an eye on your blog to see how the rigging holds up over the long term. I got dyneema trap lines since 1998 now and they are brilliant, no issues at all. If the standing rigging behaves similar (including chaff-resistance) then it will be an attractive option.

Wouter

I did when I changed my crew. Sorry, I'll get my coat.....

Lots of places where the Viper could go on a diet.

Rudder boxes are extremely heavy and very old school design. What is wrong with carbon or a diet here?

Centreboard construction could be updated. Seems to be a case of just add more stuff rather than reviewing construction process.

Look at the moth foils for instance. The Mach2 can support a man pulling them, http://www.mach2boats.com/images/stories/foil%20bedn%202.jpg And that includes the loads also being on the join between the 2 parts of the foil. These foils are expensive, but that is due the flap and other parts of the foil which include moving metal rods, bell cranks etc inside, so the build is more manual.

Building a proper Capricorn blade which is the same length can be done and weight loss achieved. Same for rudders.

Beams are straight from the F18. But are there alternatives? OK to have heavy beams in the F18 as you are building the platform to be stiff and as close to the 130kg platform limit as possible before you add the rig. Heavy beams are an easy development here in the F18, but is that directly translatable to a smaller and lighter F16?

These are just starters in my opinion. For a great design, there are just a few too many compromises to make it a brilliant.

Honestly tiapan, what are you going to save with light rudder boxes? Maybe 2 or 3 kilos tops. They still have to be strong and a Moth rudder gantry just isn't going to cut it on a catamaran, be sensible about what you are comparing it to. Plus im sure your well aware that foiling moths break....all the time.

The center boards are way lighter than those on an f18 already. And there is no way you would sacrifice the stiffness of the platform with lighter aluminium beams.

Its been said by many. The only way to get it to minimum weight is for carbon everything. Now i certainly dont want to pay for that. But if the class continues to grow its only a matter of time before someone does.

In my opinion the full carbon boat will not be a hell of a lot faster than the current boats but it will be faster. That will be a big problem for the class.

A top of the range viper or falcon that costs more than a nacra F20 carbon???? Surely you can see how ridiculous this would be.

Aido

Bye the way AHPC may have made some compromises but i believe they have come up with something very cool. Its about time the f16 class association did the same.

Think you misread my post Aido. Didn't talk about a moth gantry to start with, referred to a moth centreboard. Wouter referred earlier to how a Dutch company made extremely strong boards for a reasonable price, and as making a similar observation to how other classes are making light and strong boards. Seen the Viper ones break in Singapore, plus they chip really badly along the trailing edge, and saying they can be improved.

If you read the F18 rules you can understand why they do particular things. There is a maximum weight for the boards, so they build the boards to the maximum weight. There is a maximum weight for the platform, so they build the platform up to that weight. Heavy beams is part of this heavy platform package. Saying (and just my opinion) that moving heavy F18 beams made for a particular F18 package may not translate across to a lighter F16. There are potentially alternatives.

And moths break a lot as there is no minimum weight so you go to the edge of what is possible. If you can get away with it, even better.

My post didn't refer to going all carbon spare the expense approach.

My FCA blade weighs in at 1.5 kg over minimum with the only carbon being in the foils. You don't need an all carbon boat to reach minimum, that's a myth.

I don't think the Vipers are necessarily the fastest either. At last years oz nationals the blades were often first to the first mark and passed vipers going downwind. The vipers won because they were sailed very well by two very good teams. Which is what we saw at the global challenge aswell.

I'm in agreement with you Simon, good quality workmanship is probably all that is required as can been seen in these photo's of one of the first FCA Blades. No sign of carbon in this hull!!

Allow me to add some verified numbers to this discussion :




Currently the Capricorn F18 and Viper F16 rudder stocks are solid cast aluminium. This is not a lightweight or indeed strong construction at all unless AHPC heat treats the stocks after casting which is doubtfull in my opinion. AHPC, Falcon marine and Stealth Marine have all offered carbon rudder stocks while Blade Europe offers (standard) stocks made from bend high grade (heat treated) square aluminium tube. All these come in at around 0.500 kg when fully assembled (excl. the rudder boards). The F16 rudderboards are typically around 1.0 kg making the combined package 1.5 kg per side. Indeed, measuring different brands of F16 didn't show much variation here. Note how the F18 class rules state ;"The minimum weight of each complete rudder assembly comprising blade, stock and tiller is fixed at 3 kg." That means that a standard F16 build already saves AT MINIMUM 3 kg in total on the rudder assembly. Please note that breakage of stocks and rudderoards is not at all common in the F16 class, so these standard lightweight setups appears to be up to the job.

Sailfast quotes his Capricorn set of daggers and ruddersetup to be 12.63 kg. At GC 2007 we measured the Viper set at almost 15 kg on total. Either way the Viper daggers appear to be at minimum 12.63 - 6.0 kg = 6.63 kg per pair. Standard lightweight F16 daggers (high aspect) are below 2.0 kg a piece. I think we measured these at GC 2007 to be between 1.6 and 2.0 kg; with the Stealth daggers and newest Blade daggers being lightest at 1.6 kg. Only mine and I think the prototype Aussie Blade daggers were at 2.0 kg (please correct me Marcus if I'm wrong), none were over 2.0 kg. Most others were at 1.8 kg. That suggests that another 6.0 - 2*1.8 = 2.4 kg can be won on the daggers.

Combined this comes out at an minmal estimate of 5.4 kg gains simply by not using (overweight) F18 technology. Basically, in the F18 you are trying to get UP to weight instead of getting DOWN to it. Note however, that the only measurement I have of a full Viper set (GC 2007) is 15 kg compared to my own "back of the pack" 7.2 kg. That is not a difference of 5.4 kg but rather of 7.8 kg !




I actually don't see much data to suggest that. At least the Viper daggers I held were pretty much in the same weight range of the F18 boards I helped carry. I think it perfectly reasonable to expect the exact same layup to be used for both the Viper and Capricorn boards. That would be economically smart. Do you have measurements that contradict this ? How much do the "new Viper daggers" weight ?




We have done platform stiffness measurements on the F16's and interestingly enough ; all new builds are stiffer then the Tiger F18's and Nacra F18's ever were, even when compensated for the different platform weights. There is a point were platform stiffnes is enough. One can always go stiffer still, but it is doubtful whether that improves handling or performance by any significant measure. By laying up the bare platform on the sterns and lifting one hulls one can measure the height distance between both bows. My homebuild Taipan with relatively flexible beams show a height difference of 62 mm. The home build Blades with 80x2 mm beams display about 43 mm and the newer F16's (with custom beams or 90x2 mm) are around 25 mm if I remember correctly. The Tiger and Nacra F18's were measured at 95 mm. Please note that the F16 platform weight (65 kg) is exactly half the platform weight of an F18 (130 kg). This means that the homebuild (timber/epoxy/80x2) Blades were already on a par with competitive F18's and the newer F16's are better. I don't think anybody marks a 2002 Tiger as an uncompetitive F18.

I'm quite sure that the Viper F16's are somewhere around 15 mm flexing in platform stiffness. However the relatively weak 80x2 alu tubes are already enough. The 80x2 beams weight 3.5 kg a piece. What do the Capricorn beams weight; If I have to guess I would say twice as much. However does anybody have a measurement of these ? The newer F16's like the Aussie Blade and Falcons use a custom designed aluminium beam setup (Phill and I designed it together). These are a little heavier then the 80x2 beams, from memory 4.5 kg a piece, but have the same stiffness as 90x2 beams (40% better then 80x2) while presenting a more practical overall shape (straight top, bottom and back sides) and having an integrated trampoline track. Of course a custom die had to be made to produce these beams, but that was only a minor portion of the total price it would have costed to produce a single batch of 80x2 or 90x2 round beams. What I'm trying to say here is that it is not expensive to make custom aluminium beams for a F16. Any builder who doesn't have a F18 in its program will go down this route over using standardized 80x2 or 90x2 round tubes. And indeed small builders (compared to AHPC) like Australian Formula Catamarans (FCA) and Falcon Marine have gone down this route. F18 builders on the other hand will take another route as they are trying to get UP to weight. They will make one heavy and stiff beam design with an integrated trampoline track and an integrated traveller track. The latter adds another 1.25 kg to the beam. As weight is not an issue they use the same beam both at the front and back. Some builders are also foolish enough to place the trampoline track in the centre plane of the beam where it does add weight but hardly any stiffness.

It is indeed a far cry to claim that such F18 beams are a benchmark. One now also understands why F16's don't use beams with integrated traveller tracks. A seperate track of 2 mtr length riveted to the rearbeam weights 1 kg while an integrated track to both beams (2 * 2.50 mtr where 2.50 mtr track = 1.25kg) adds 2.5 kg weight to the whole platform. That is an easy 1.5 kg to save. So someone has to fit the traveller track to an F16 beam; that is some additional labour cost, but won't run up in 1000's of additional dollars. Maybe 50 bucks extra ? I would call that cheap weightsaving.

All these little weight increases do add up (to a 180 kg F18 !) and I dare say there is ample evidence that the beams, daggers and ruddersetup alone already add 10 kg at minimum to the Viper overall weight, probably a little more. Note that the lightweight F16's do not report troubles with their beams. In fact, the VWM Blades came with 90x1.6 kg rearbeams (0.5 kg lighter then 80x2 and 15% stiffer) and I believe there was only single one report of malfunction there, thus suggesting an extrusion error rather then a design error.

Wrapping up this particular point. MUCH lighter beams could have been used for the Viper F16 while maintaining sufficient platform stiffness; at least at such a level as to be on a par or better then a competive F18 design.




Actually, this is only said by the people closely associated to the Viper F16 design. In fact, even mr Gooddall himself admits to the fact that the basic Taipan F16 (4.9 with a spi) is right at the minimum class weight (without ANY use of exotic materials like carbon). And one more then one occasion he mentioned to me that he feels that it is still a surprisingly competitive craft especially in 1-up mode. Now, he has a point in saying that the newer 2-up F16's have become significantly bigger boats, but that still doesn't negate the fact that going up from 107 kg to 130 kg is one major increase in overall weight. After all, the only items that needed to be beefed up were the beams and hulls; one doesn't need 23 kg to do that. Note that a 10% increase in hull crosssection dimensions (weight) already incurrs a 21% increase in hull volume. The Taipan hulls come in at 23.5 kg. Basically, this means that a 26 kg hull that is build with Taipan 4.9 technology can have 25% more hull volume for only 2 * 2.5 = 5 kg more ready to sail weight; and 25% additional volume is a major increase (think boat+crew = 107+135kg going up to 112+190kg).

Upgrading from 80x2 to 10x2 beam (or equivalent stiffness beams) will cost an additional 1.7 kg per set = say 2.0 kg or less for an increase of 95% increase in beam stiffness = say doubling the beam stiffness.

Now the readers will also understand why the competition (who also makes economical decisions in constructing these F16's) are able to produce wide bodied and stiff glass/vinylester/alu boats that in their basic standard 2-up fit-out weight in the range of 110-115 kg. (This is confirmed by actual GC measurements). So yes, the claims are correct in principle, just not in the actual amount of weight that needs to be added.

Now imagine placing a (3800 USD / 3000 Euro) carbon mast on such a standard boat (typically 16.000 USD / 15.000 Euro); this will already lower the ready-to-sail weight to the range 106-111 kg and put the cost price on a par with a modern competitive F18. Also note that the all carbon Stealth F16 is priced some 2000 Euro below that figure. Additionally, the reduced weight of the rig will lower the demands placed on the bow volume again, thus allow smaller hull volumes to be used again.

Can anyone imagine sailing such a standard Falcon or Aussie Blade F16 with a carbon mast ? I think it would be a dream to sail and be THE benchmark against which all other designs will be compared. I think some Stealth owners are one step ahead of us in that respect.





Actually, the claim of costing more then a N20 carbon is rediculous itself. Indeed, EU en US customers can already buy a close to minimum weight carbon masted F16 for the same price as they can buy an alu masted F18 like the Capricorn for (under 20.000 USD / under 18.000 Euro's). Hell the last quote for a carbon masted Inter-17 was significantly higher then that, not to mention the cost associated with the new Hobie iCat. The Hobie FX-one with an alu mast and no jib or spinnaker will set you back 14.500 Euro's. Even the sloop+spi alu masted 149 kg heavy Cirrus Evolution will cost 15.000 Euro's. http://www.boulogneconceptionmarine.com/fr/catamarans-fiche.asp?IdProduit=3

It is a strange world indeed when a 110-115 kg STANDARD F16 is ACTUALLY both cheaper and faster then its 130-150 kg competition. Additionally, it also has a much more developped international class stucture.



I'm sure somebody will some day construct an all carbon fibre F16, possibly with diamonds inlays on the deck. Some desert Sjeik may find that attractive. However, it will not gain more then 4 kg on a 20.000 USD/18.000 Euro carbon masted F16 that is available of the shelf today (most likely less then that). It will not gain much platform stiffness as he is NOT allowed the glue the carbon beams to the hulls and therefor has to use the old bolt and nuts fastenings that negate much of the stiffness gains. As a result he will not be faster at all then the above mentioned cheap F16 and he will look like a right fool when Robbie Daniels passes him on a standard all glass/alu/130kg Viper.

I feel we must give the customer and class member some credit here. They will know perfectly well what an acceptable ratio is between cost and performance and will rightly ignore over expensive F16's that may look good on paper but not live up to the promise. I don't think any customer is in the slightest attracted to a 30.000 US/25.000 Euro F16 when it promises to only improve weight by a mere 4 kg and platform stiffness by a mere 10 mm ( modern A-cat 15 mm; modern standard F16 25 mm). He or she will know that that is just wasted money.

And why do I think that ? Because the Viper design is selling at the moment (just as the other F16 designs are) implying that its customers are not too worried about its 15-20 kg additional weight. If so then why do we expect them to worry about a mere 4 kg ? They don't and they won't.

With kind regards,

Wouter

Simon,

You know what is also missing in those pictures ?

Excessive waste !

Like large drops or rims of resin and filler.

Have you ever looked inside some of the big builder boats.

I must say that Australian Formula Catamarans builds some tidy hulls. This attention to detail and clean working sort of hints at a very high standard of quality control.

Wouter

Well done FCA !

I remember the prototype Aussie Blade to be 112.7 at the Global challenge 2007. To see it come down to 108.5kg or just 1.5 kg over minimum without carbon hulls, beams or even a carbon mast is great !

I assume this doesn't include the jib sail and track ?

Put a carbon mast on there and you'll have to carry lead !

For all you forum readers out there, The Aussie Blade F16 hulls are indeed very close in freeboard and volume to the Viper F16 hulls, not to mention the platform is at full F16 width. The same points that are given as the cause for favouring raising the min. class weight.

Wouter

I know in America we have many F16 sailors who could lose 10-20 kg just by going on a diet, I did! It's funny to hear anyone debate which boat is lighter when they are carrying an extra 30lbs. around the waistline.

Until I get my own fat butt down to "Minimum weight" I'm not going to worry about how many kilos's over wt. my boat is!

Only 10 more lbs. to go! Then I'll go shopping for a new $10,000 carbon mast, just to save another 10 lbs., and guess what?

Robie Daniels, JC, Greg Goodall, and many others will still kick my butt on their -heavy- boats!

It's about the sailors, not the boats.

PS: no, I am not going to buy a carbon mast, that was sarcasm.

Acutally it was 105.5kg (uni rig) when we weighed it. It would be slightly higher now (maybe half a kilogram)because i have beefed some items up since.

I'm not too worried though, I think I have room to lose 2 kgs myself.

Actually, the lightest daggerboards at the GC 2007 were made by Stealth Marine in the UK (1.6 kg).

Mark Pressdees very young Stealth F16 was a very pretty boat that checked all the boxes. I think it had to carry a tip weight up its carbon mast and was at minimum class weight. John Pierce delivered on that boat.

In 2008, the Dutch company www.catamaranparts.nl (who also supplies Vectorworks / Falcon Marine) also build 1.6 kg high aspect daggerboards using a profile that was developped in the A-cat class. It was this board we both tested with our 90 and 95 kg bodies by jumping up and down on its tip when we had it jammed to a work table. I dared not give it to much gusto, but Hans (being confident in his product) did and he is truly a big guy (I tend to flatter him about his weight).

I saw him giving that board a work out as it is was a diving plank in the swimming pool.

If there is one thing I say about Hans then it will be that he has golden hands. He also made our global challenge throphy and whatever he makes is good quality; no doubt about that although his website could be a little better.

In order to give some extra weight to the above; I admit that we are not tight friends.

Wouter

Ohhh ! now that is light !

The jib package should add about 2.0-2.5 kg (sail, track, swivelcleats, line, blocks). Having it come in from the factory at 108 kg in sloop 2-up attire, or 1 kg above minimum class weight and the Taipan 4.9/F16's. As a standard glass/alu boat ?

Wow !

This sort of puts things in perspective

Wouter

Yeah, I'm thinking of getting some of that DSK78 on Macca's website for the stays to save that 1.5 kgs. How much faster do you think I will go?

Mentally or physically speaking ?

Never underestimate the placebo effect.

Wouter

Actually,

I think the F18 class disallows high strength lines to be used as trapeze lines. I'm not sure whether the Viper uses lines here or wire. I seem to remember the Blades and Falcons coming standard with high strength line trap lines.

Personally, I will never use wire in this role again. Lines are cheaper, lighter (by 0.5 kg) and damage the sails and mast much less then steel trap wires.

With a needle and polyester thread or splicing one can make ones own timble eyes.

It all adds up.

Wouter

AHPC is providing a nice platform, so do not take this a bash on them, but your comment above is a bit beyond BS.

The F16 class has a very defined set of parameters (agree with them or not) and a number of builders, profesional and amature worldwide. Trying to force class rules to match 1 manufacturer is assinine.

AHPC has elected to use F18 parts, foils beams etc. so he can maximize his use of dies and molds, cut his inventory, and handling and make a bit more money selling boats. In the end he has boats that are around 20+ Kg over the majority of the competition. This is their descision and people who choose to purchase their boats are well aware of this.

Put the right drivers on the boats and they can win races. Gregg and Jill spent quite a lot of money to prove that point last week at the GC. FHC and Falcon are building boats that within the rules can be made under min for right around the same selling price. If you choose to buy a heavy boat, do not blame the class rules for being non-competitive. If everyone decides they can not stand the added weight and stops purchasing Vipers, you better believe AHPC will put it on a diet and a Viper 2 will hit the market soon.

Someone will in all liklyhood build an all carbon boat down the road. Somebody somwhere will want one for the bling.

Carbon mast are legal, but with a min tip weight the advantage of a carbon mast is not that great. A proper sail mast combo is most important.

Carbon beams will not save any appreciable weight over tube aluminum. The only way you could save weight going to carbon beams is to get rid of the bolts and bond the boat together, but that is not allowed.

There are glass hulls now being produced at min weight. Going to carbon adds what? They would be a bit stiffer, but that is such a marginal improvement that I do not beleive there is any way anyone would feel they have to have carbon to be competitive. It is an envy thing only.

The F16 class was not created to be a baby F18. It is a semi-developmenal class of its own. A lot of people understand that and embrace that. If not there are pleanty of other classes and boats to sail.

Allow me to second that.

My other posts may be misunderstood as basking the Viper, but I too feel the Viper is an very nice boat. In fact, I like it alot. I really like the layout and how tidy it is. It also appears to be the perfect hullshape for the rough conditions we get here on the North sea. It has ample freeboard and it is very capable in the severe chop we get over here. That I know from a direct comparison between diffent F16's made by I person I trust alot. Additionally, I've seen it go (just as the Aussie Blade) at the GC 2007 and it looked like it handled the chop very well indeed.

In fact, I would very seriously consider it as my next boat if it would come in below 120 kg when in sloop 2-up attire with alu mast. Of course I would prefer it around 110 kg but feel that any overweightness that is less then 13 kg is very acceptable indeed. The F16's simply carry weight that well in a competitive fashion.

Why this limit ? Because I have to handle my boat singlehandedly on the beach and trailer. Even when I had a crew, I was always the one doing the lifting and transporting by myself. You often get that with female crews. Now my nephew and niece are growing up, but I don't expect them to out lift me for another 15 years.

Currently I can just walk up my F16 against the (soft) sandy incline leading up to my club's harbour. An additionally 20 kg would probably break my back and I'm not getting any younger either.

Wouter