http://catsailingnews.blogspot.com/2010/05/cs-interview-andrew-mac-pherson.html
I'd be pretty surprised if there weren't some folks in here with some strong views on this!

Nothing new on F16 from Macca.

At least he is consistent...

Doesn't he say that carbon ought to be ruled out on the F16 other than the boards?

Then he raves about the F20 full carbon boat?

And, didn't he say that he wasn't sailing for anyone in a previous thread that was pretty recent?

Am I missing something?

I know the guy is supposed to be really good, but WTF?

So he thinks the big three ought to come in redefine the rules and basicly steal the class away from those who started it. What a guy.

Looks like a fairly accurate summary to me.

Good luck to the big three. We are all a bunch of misfits, free thinkers if you prefer, and we attract others of the same ilk. I wouldn't worry too much about being co-opted.

I venture that the F18 had timing in its favor, not the big 3. (or 2 at the time)


While it is very sucessful, what other sucesses can be attributed to them?

The 20 class is a hoge poge of dead and dying boats with 1 new super carbon machine that is going to resurect it - YEAH RIGHT Some very consistent Macca logic working here.

We have how many different versions and confuguration of 17? All so succesfull because of them.

Nothing wrong with having large builders and their money for marketing, but it is not the end all be all of any class - just ask the A class.

Nacra and Hobie have now got themselves into a real dilemma, by not entering this market earlier. AHPC now holds the key dominant market share / marketing hype, with the Viper. For Nacra / Hobie to gain any foot hold into that market share, their product has to have a real perceived performance gain. The only real way they can do that is by reducing weight to class limits leaving the Viper as the over weight pup, at which stage AHPC would have to redress the weight issues with purpose built beams and rudder assemblies.

For the F16 class it would be a win win situation.

Or they could produce identically specked and performing boats, joining the Viper in a newly developed Formula, gain plenty of exposure on the regatta circuit and press, professional and non professional teams, perhaps a youth or women’s circuit........ And be a real threat to the F16 formula.

I would not be so ****. You can see it coming from a mile away if you are not wearing blinkers.

It is business and nice guys finish last.

No one says they will come in and steal your Formula, however they could set up a rival formula and steal away market share.

Nacra and Hobie both already had boats which where more or less the same as the F16 concept called FX1 and F17, and failed.
IMO I dont see why they will join the F16 class any time soon.

What if they do?

Cool, good for everyone.

As to taking market share, they are going to have take AHPC market share first, with growing fleets of Vipers they are off to slow start and unless they produce a rival boat soonish, they will never catch up.

Or from the Blade, Falcon or Stealth. AHPC could feed of the introduction of any Nacra / Hobie 125kg 16 footers as could Hobie and Nacra feed of the Vipers existance. As with F18s and as Macca poined out in his interview, some people are loyal to their manufactures and will only buy from their manufacturer of choice.

Neither ever had much of a class, they'd be buying into an existing class as a F16 though. I think that makes a difference.

Yeah and, thats what marketing is all about, getting customer loyalty. Unless Nacra and Hobie dip there toes in the water and build a 16ft boat then they can only loose more customers to AHPC which in turn could threaten their F18 sales.

I personally am all for the big boys trying to set up their own class, it would leave the F16 class to get on with doing what they want as per class rules plus there would be other 16ft boats to race against. The handicap rating is so close that the gorilla on the tiller is going to be the winner.

If they are sucessful and hold a F16 Heavyweight or what ever competition and we want to join in then its not too hard for us to put a bit of ballast on to comply to their rules for the comp. Bit more difficult the other way.

The F16 threatens the "big" two and a half because it exposes the lie that catamarans have to be built to 1970's-80's weight to be affordable.
Several of the F16 builders have proven that this is not the case.

If the evidence ever sinks into the thick brain washed heads of the sailing public their masquerade will be exposed for what it is. The fact is; you can have a strong light efficient boat for the same price as a lead sled disguised in a modern design.

The extrapolation naturally takes you to; If they can build a F16 light weight, then what in the world are we doing accepting a 400lb 18' cat or a 13' roto-mold low performance cat that weighs as much as an F16? Thinking sailors will move towards the F16 concept, and forward thinking classes like it...the sheep will continue to follow the crowd over the cliff.

Catamaran sailors would never buy a new cell phone that was as big and cumbersome as those of the 1980's, nor would they own a computer that had the attributes of a Commodore 64, why they will accept a low tech 1970's boat molded in a modern shape will forever escape me when alternatives exist.

If weight is no issue why has Hobie Europe offered 6 catamarans less than 4 meters in size yet people are still moving forward with the F12 concept?

Why would the big 2-1/2 want to undermine the F16?... If other builders are building to F16 specs (or extremely close to them) it leads us to believe that the big 2-1/2 chooses not to. Apathy? Ineptitude? Laziness? Greed? Arrogance? Only they know for sure why they don’t put out a product that rises to the F16 concept.

Geez! Thanks.

Seeker,

While I am not disagreeing with you, there are many point you have not considered.

Firstly, it is more than possible to build a boat close to minimum weight without blowing the budget. Smaller manufactures and home builders have proven this. However this does come as a trade off on two fronts, durability and stiffness.

As a major manufacture we have to guarantee our boats, and in Europe that is 2 years by law. If you under build your designs then you are effectively playing Russian Roulette with your business. The other option is you have to charge more per boat to cover the high level of warranty claims.

The second point of stiffness is something that get highly over looked as a integral design feature.I'm not going to get into the "He said" - "She said" - "my numbers show" arguments here... As an engineer I know we can all take different conclusions from the same results. But the fact is stiffness comes at a cost, either dollars or KG (lb for the Americans among us). You have to choose the trade off between weight Vs stiffness. On a side note I believe this is a good feature of the F16... that is that the designer must make another critical decision.

While I agree that some manufactures choose to build easy / cheep boats in favor of "High Teching it up" I think it is rude to assume it is "Apathy? Ineptitude? Laziness? Greed? Arrogance?. In all situations the decisions have been carefully thought through and choices made.

I encourage anyone who feels they can do a good job at designing / manufacturing a catamaran to do so... then consider doing it commercially.

Oh and more "on topic"... does this forum enjoy the banter with macca???? this is the second thread specifically aimed at him. Just an observation.