Will buy my first f16 this year moving up from a H16
I will probably sail half the time with crew half solo. No other boats here and no serious racing yet.

I will have to import a new boat so am choosing between the Viper and Falcon as they are the newest designs

Has the Falcon moved on much from the Viper hull design and general boat set up?

As I see it the Viper seems to come from a much longer pedigree which is attractive . but the Falcon weighs 20kg less according to specs which surely will help moving the boat around on soft sand and righting when I am on my own.

Are there any other major differences?

I have sailed the Viper for a few hours but will have no chance to try a Falcon

I appreciate its all a compromise and would appreciate any advice before making a final decision

I have a brand new Falcon sitting on my driveway right now, having sailed one at the GC last year and been very impressed by it, so obviously my opinion is that of a man who chose the Falcon over other F16s...

The Falcon is a new hull shape, but in terms of build and set up it's very much an evolution of the Blade that Falcon Marine (formerly Vectorworks) have been building for a number of years. This shows in the design and layout of the various systems, which in my opinion, are now extremely well sorted as it comes from the factory.

For me, the extra weight ruled the Viper out, and that's not particularly a concern about boat speed or even ability to right: when the tide's out at our club*, the ramps up from the water are pretty long and steep, and the idea of dragging an unnecesary 20kg up those ramps single handed just doesn't appeal.

Beyond that, I don't think there are any great differences. The Viper uses an under-the-tramp downhaul system whereas the Falcon uses an internal downhaul system in the mast. Both are neat, but I had the internal system on my old Blade and I know it works well.

Paul

* Yes, I sail at an inland reservoir, but every few months London gets thirsty, or Thames Water screw something up, and we end up sailing on a puddle at the bottom of a 75ft deep reservoir.

I like both boats very much but I'm buying the Falcon for the same reason, weight. Coming up our club beach is where the extra weight would punish me as I pretty much sail solo always. Ed

Interesting ... you guys like lighter boats??? Stop the insanity.

You can't go wrong with either. If I were buyin' today: Falcon + Goodall sails. Just me - don't be a hater.

I don't know where you are.. maybe also consider the Stealth and Blade..
best of luck.

From the other thread it seems the ideal solution is an Aussie Blade with a Viper rig. Get best of both worlds.

Unless you are a very talented sailor, stick with what the manufacturer offers.

On catsailingnews.blogspot.com there is a small article on the Falcon.

Gill

Does the "viper rig" include the beams or do you mean essentially the Taipan rig?

The comment was in jest, Viper mast and sail on a Aussie blade.

Actually Buccaneer, the F16 rigs are not the same as the Taipan rigs.

We started out with the Taipan rigs (with an added spinnaker) but soon fitted longer spreader arms (not allowed by Taipan class rules), raised the hound fitting (not allowed by Taipan rules), fitted a larger squaretop mainsail (not allowed by Taipan class rules), hoist the mainsail to higher points above the mainbeam (not allowed by Taipan class rules), have a different width distribution along the mainsail (not allowed per Taipan class rules), etc.

Over the years the F16 rig and Taipan have diverged although some convergence was seen when the Taipan class voted to accept their new squaretop mainsails (F16 spin-off). Both classes still use the same basic bare mast section but increasingly differ in the way they are fitted out and how they flex in combination with their difference mainsails.

They are becoming increasingly different engines.

Of course each vote in the Taipan class to open up their class rules to allow for these F16 inspired changes will see a momentary converge. That is true.


The Taipan rig was a great starting point, absolutely no doubt about that, but there has been significant (and specific) F16 related development.

Wouter

True.

It's also true that lighter boats are a hell of a lot more 1) practical and more importantly 2) handle that much better. That's why I'd tend to go for the Falcon over the heavier Viper (speed is not an issue between the two designs as AHPC has proven that the heavier boat can keep up).

So from a purely business standpoint it makes since that AHPC would want to raise the class minimum weight as they lack two important selling points over their competitors.

Also interesting to me how the Aussies have moved production overseas while the Americans and Europeans seem to still be able to manufacture lighter boats and be competitive. Funny but somehow I assumed that cost of production was actually lower in AUS then it was in let's say the US or Europe so I do really need to update my economic reference points for these new modern times..

What is the real world weight difference? I'd look myself, but I'm not sure where to look for the last GC stuff.

Lighter boats are easier to handle?? On the beach yes, but on the water I don't agree with you at all.

From experience I would say the heavier boats are less flighty, more forgiving and easier to drive.

But Hell... what do I know?

So what is the hull volume difference between the Viper and the Falcon? Which is the stiffer platform? What weight are the Falcons comming in at. For that matter, how many F16s weigh min weight, how many are 5 or more kg over min. Are there any F16s carring lead correctors.

There is a reason why the heavier Viper is so quick. It is a better hull design, has more voulme and is a stiffer platform.

All these weather you want to believe it or not, do make a difference.

As for boat weigh and handleing, as what Brett said.

every design is a compromise.

AHPC has its compromise as does Vectorworks, as an examples.... To skew the rules to suit one design over another is wrong. Unless your pushing for an one design class..

Who is trying to skew the rules. We have a major concern at a cost blow out in the class. The class has weighed up this and doesn't agree, that's fine. It is their decision. I'm not going to debate the where's and how much's in regards to this, that has been done to death I've the last year.

But to answer you question: take the boats for a test sail and see which one you prefer. If you think you can build/assemble a better one than the manufacturers, go for it!! We might learn something out if it.

Humm, from experience I say light boats are more fun to sail.

I find F18 sailing (outside of fleet racing) a little dull by comparison and I know that I'm not the only one.


Besides I know the heavier FX-one (150 kg) was significantly less fun to sail then my lightweight F16 because it was significantly more flighty, less forgiving and harder to drive. I put that down to its use of a cut-down Tiger F18 mast (far too stiff), use of F18 daggers (far too long and too much surface area) and hull volume too much centralized under the main beam for 1-up sailing (stern dragging or pitchpoling). As a singlehander it should have been designed noticeably different. As a versatile boat (1-up + 2-up) it should have been designed alot more clever, especially in the keel line. Overall boat weight was hardly a redeeming factor in the way this boat sails.

Therefore I don't think there is much truth to the rule of thumb you state.

If I was a moderator ....................


Wouter, can we keep discussions civil please? Your posts of late have been enjoyable reading - informed, reasoned and well constructed. Why go back to personal attacks? In general, they're unwarranted, vague and essentially wrong.
For your own good, if nothing else, I'd like to see you withdraw the above throw away comment as, in truth, it shows you in a very poor light.

Karl,

A good rule of thumb is that fully fitted 2-up glass/alu F16's such as the US Blade and Falcon are about 3 to 6 kg above min. ready to sail 2-up weight (107 kg). First generation Blades were a bit heavier then that; later Blades like the Alter Cup Blade (and the Aussie Blades) are low in that range.

Main reason for this is that the builders figure that there is no point in producing the alu/glass version at lower weights as the upgrade to a carbon mast will lower overall boat weight by about 4.5 kg and place the boat right near to min. class weight. Going below below the min. class weight is not considered attractive.

The Vipers are quoted by AHPC as being 129 kg in 2-up mode. I remember actually some of the measured weights at the GC2009 to be around 130 kg and just over. All boats were previously sailed (both Vipers and Blades/Falcons) and it maybe logical to see them weight in a little heavier.


There are minimum weight boats around in the F16 class.

I say a good rule of thumb of the weight difference between both alu/glass boats is (on average) 130-112 kg = 18.5 kg with on average about 22.0 kg when compared to a Carbon masted/alu/glass F16.

Wouter

actually if you look at my past posts I suggest to anyone who is looking, looks at all available boats and decide..

I have built a F16 and will again (hopefully soon).. Second boat in the F16 class as an "optimised" design, I believe to Wouter's F16 and a unique design (I was too cheap, perhaps, to order Tiapan plans).. It did come off second best to a SS34..
So first lesson I can teach you is:
a 34' 6 tonne 15 mm thick solid glass hull isn't dented by an F16.. One may scrape some paint but that is it..the F16 hulls (well mine at least) do/did not look so wholesome after the incident.. I would suggest a Viper may also be worse for wear..

Secondly : these new planes have internet access... I know not F16 related but a hopefully a helpful tip.