Personally, I would be willing to take that risk.

And no, I don't enjoy these discussions, mainly because they are almost entirely data-free.

I think its more to do with him targeting the class more than anything. This just happens to be the choosen battle ground. In other words, he started it.

At some point it will be fiscally viable to build boats lighter, cheaper and stiffer. Some person or company will come out with the next best thing in composites that will make us wonder why we even bothered with epoxy/carbon-fibre. Like many things in the past, it'll probably happen by accident, though those opportunities grow few by the day.

Any manufacturing business, if they've got the capital to move forward on a different product to fill a niche, they will do so. So long as it looks like there is a going to be a return on that investment, in other words its gotta pencil out. Sure, someone could have a underweight, fully optimized F16 built, but how much would it cost, and how many could you sell? Look at Marstrom, how many M20's do they sell?

So, is there actually a niche for a fully optimized F16?

Karl, maybe one day I'll magically grow wings and be able to fly like a humming bird.

Lighter, stronger, faster, better is without exception more expensive. Time to be realistic.

Brett

Thank you for your thought provoking response.

"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."

>>>I find this hard to accept, if this were true no one would sell "A" class cats in Europe as they are without question much more fragile than the F16. As a manufacture you have the right to define a reasonable scope of use for your product, outside of which the warrantee is void, as is the case with every other manufactured product.



"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."

>>>As an engineer you know without a doubt that the very discipline itself is centered on designing structures, whether a catamaran, a car or a space shuttle ... maximizing strength/weight/performance/cost restraints and countless other factors.
To do other wise is no more scientific than a back yard builder saying "if one layer of glass will do the job, two will make it twice as strong" that's not engineering. Using F18 beams sizes for economy of manufacturing, with all due respect, is a marketing decision, not as much as an engineering one, although I concede there is a slight benefit in stiffness as a by product...

"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 was not trying to be rude, nor did I assign any particular attribute to AHPC, Hobie or NACRA. There is some reason the three above builders have not built an optimized F16... a larger boat builder has an advantage over a smaller builder in raw material costs because of the quantity of materials used if nothing else. Why is it that smaller builders do not have the same issues with the minimum weight?

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

They are...they just don't have the budgets to attract the "hired guns " to sail their boats to victories.

"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."

No, I do not enjoy the banter with Macca or any of his minions but it does royally insults peoples intelligence when someone covertly tries to paint an alternate reality like he does thru deception and twisting of the facts. Many of those who do not abide in the truth become victims of their own lies, that is, they repeat the lies so often they began to believe it themselves.

Brett...while I have your attention I would like to ask you a question....is the Viper basically a Capricorn F18 with the distance between the stations compressed? It sure looks like it, and it would be a great way to develop the product with minimum hassle. Just curious.

Aido
"Lighter, stronger, faster, better is without exception more expensive. Time to be realistic."

No, that is a false premise...That is why we "engineer" things instead of building them "on the fly."

A properly engineered product aims to give the greatest cost/benefit ratio...spending a lot of money doesn't guarantee a superior product...only a more expensive one.

Take off your "Macca glasses" and you will be able to see the obvious.

Seeker,

Great to here some solid arguments that aren't just thrown around.

I had a response all done but it seems to be lost in internet land somewhere... anyway there was nothing of great importance in it...

But i will answer you question again:

The Viper was designed to try a few ideas we had coming off the back the CAP. We had some theories regarding hull shapes and volume distribution that we wanted to try out. The Viper was really a prototype for these ideas before we implemented them into an F18. The result is even still surprising us with what it can achieve.

As for weather it is a Capricorn compressed... not even close. One of the joys of CAD design is that you can have many hull designs overlayed on one another, we had the Cap as a reference but the whole hull was built from scratch. also with Cad design , product development is quick, cheep and easy so there is no need to cut corners. i have had some people want jobs done on the cheep and from experience, it is ALWAYS better in the long term to do it properly from the start.

I'm a little too busy right now to bother getting into this again, but I always love the conspiracy theories that come out of this group!

The big manufacturers are selling lies!!!?? awesome stuff.

Oh, I am with Goran Marstrom this afternoon and tomorrow, would anyone like to know the costs to build a fully optimised (properly engineered, with warranty) F16? I am sure we can work it out for you all..

Always a sign of ones importance when you have to name drop. Was it Mrs Bucket or Mrs Bouquet.

Yup a Marstrom carbon F16 would be ubber cool and a rich mans toy but it still is going to have to be 107 kilos, so I think I'll stick to my Stealth and spend the rest on a year of sailing practice ( and I bet I would be faster around the course than with the Marstrom ).

Right, where were you yesterday? I didn't see you doing your sailing practice with the rest of us

And next time I see you please remind me that I need to convince you to come to Como

Designing a boat, much like sailing one is a series of carefully thought out compromises. They may me detailed engineering decisions, but all still contain a cost benefit factor.

The big 2 have a history and significant amount of money tied up in existing boats that are very close, in concept anyway, to the F16. Someone in their organization has more than likely done some noodling over this and obviously decided for the time being there is not an economic benefit for them to enter into this market. As Bret pointed out, for a “company” to produce a product it has to backed up with warranty, real engineering, and plain old product development and support. This is unbelievably expensive if your market is only a few boats.

Compounding this is that the F16 rule is written to be a performance race boat. Part of the problem with achieving mass acceptance of a light weight performance package is always going to revolve around educating the customer. Everyone, of course, would want to have the fasted lightest baddest, all carbon super racer on the beach. Unfortunately for the commercial builders who have to back their product there are a large number of people who end up treating their new boat the same way they treated the 500 dollar used Hobie they had previously. Going out in conditions they are not qualified for, dragging it over rocky beaches, lax maintenance etc. You cannot treat a modern flat bottom high volume hull like you would your old thick keel V-bottom, not matter the weight. An A class will last a long time, but it will not make it a season if treated like I have seen a lot of people treat their boats. This does not apply to all, but if you look to mass marketing, you begin to attract this group of owners, which is why I feel the bigger builders will continue to avoid the F16.

The F16 concept was set up as sailor’s class, with more in common to the A than the F18. Both of those have been successful, but for very different reasons. People get upset with macca in particular, but he is just a spokesman for those that feel that the class should be builder dominated, and that if the class revises its rules the big players will start to play. The world already has several similarly sized heavier boats that have not been a marketing success. Yet we see continued attempts to raise the min weight, which IMO is one of the sole reasons the F16 class has grown where others failed.

Getting us back to the design and compromise concept. Weight does not necessarily equate to stiffness or robustness, it is cost and marketing. Using F18 beams on a 16 is a cost decision. It reduces molds, design, inventory and shop space and labor. It is not a design decision for stiffness of the boat, as a round section could easily be specified and sourced that saves considerable weight and is a lot better in torsion than the rectangular section now. Recycling F18 castings, foils and fittings does the same. In the end, this additional weight has to be very near what the boat is over, meaning the hull laminate is very close on weight per surface area to many of the small and 1 off builders. I apologize for singling out the Viper as all builders and even home builders face the same sourcing cost, and ease issues, but these particular items were used repeatedly in the context of this post.

The F16 is not for everyone, nor should we try to make it so but there is a nitch and enough customer base to make it a good thing.

"The F16 is not for everyone, nor should we try to make it so but there is a nitch and enough customer base to make it a good thing."

+1

Goran could build a Hobie 16 and still feel right to charge 20.000 bucks for it.

Goran has never been inexpensive in whatever he produces. I would regard his F16 quote in that light.

Wouter

Thanks Brett for answering my question about the Capricorn/Viper design connection. I am familiar with a few different CAD programs and understand where you are coming from.

My point was more from the angle of ....if you have a well performing hull design with "known attributes" it is logical to build on each preceeding design based on actual "on the water feed back" as opposed to starting with a completely blank sheet of paper and heading too far in a new theoretical direction.

"Goran could build a Hobie 16 and still feel right to charge 20.000 bucks for it."

And you could get Ferrari to build a Ford F-150 Pickup truck, neither would be worth the cost/benefit factor.

Best response I have ever read.

The Marstrom tiller extensions are da' bomb, and not much more than the carbon Hotstick. Exception to the rule though.

Porsche could build an SUV but nobody would pay that much for an ugly, heavy, people mover.... would they?

.....next thing you know farmers will start buying tractors made by Lamborghini.....

irony is a wonderful thing.............

Ugly is taking it a bit far!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_Cayenne

I would happily park one in the drive way!