Bert,
you can't compare these three classes this way. These are apples, oranges and pears.... They are all fruit but that is about it.

The F18's specifically choose that build weight because it was doable, low tech and they did not want a development push on weight and materials. Sailors are right to demand a boat that measures under the class weight and needs correcting to be legal....(that is part of the class's apeal)

The F16 class rule is similar but the founders wanted more development and lower production weights (to gain some market share from the F18 class)... the three builders you mention all take a different route to their market solution ... This is a function of their F16 design rule and core philosophy. The racers in the class don't care and declare all solutions equal and one up and two up flavors equal as well... (whatever!!) You can't demand an F16 measure into a non existent standard as a consumer.

(The measurement rating systems just measure each boat and issue a unique rating for specific build eg Viper ... The default F16 rating would be for the lightest boat allowed by their rule...)

The N17 class is SMOD and ISAF will go NUTS if Nacra changes the platform build over it's Olympic cycle... They had enough of the Tornado sailors working around the Tornado One design rule to game the system. You can't even drill a hole in the N17 platform.. If the N17s differ in 2 years... There will be hell to pay.. (Now, new boats could well be stiffer then used boats and that should drive the elite to stay with new boats)

If you are a 20 to 40 year old sailor looking at one of these three classes.. You have clear choices. Which one(s) survives for 20 more years like the Thistle or Lightning or Hobie 16.. ... Hmmm. YMMV

Yeah, I see your point - but if I'm plopping $20k+ down a new boat where the class minimum weight is an obvious expectation and it isn't made, I'm not going to be very happy with my purchase or the manufacturer. They would lose a lot of subsequent business if people knew that their boats may not be at minimum weight.

This also happened to a major A-cat manufacturer recently...and let me tell you, those guys aren't happy when they spend $25k on a boat (before buying a mast or sail) and it's 6% over minimum weight.

Minimum weight is part of the expectation in these classes. You could argue that the sailors hurt the manufacturer with their demands but you could also argue that their sales are going to go flat if they can't keep their platform weight at or slightly under the minimums.

Building an F18 at min weight can be done and can be done at a profit. I got off my Infusion because it was heavy (yes I disclosed plus it was on the cert) and got a C2 because they had (at the time) a very strong reputation of coming in right on the money plus the C2 was available and the Mk II wasn't. Jill and AHPC where very smart in how they dealt with the heavy boats, has any of the other provider done that? Could be the reason why the C2 appears to have taken over the US F18 fleet. So Mike, doing it the right way makes money too!

You guys make some excellent points (that I happen to agree with), but the phrase "winning the battle but losing the war" comes to mind.

Mike

Not sure what you by "the war", you mean the survival of the builders?

Mike, this is one of the biggest reasons why the formula/box has done as well as it has...choices. Of course a monopoly (SMOD) would be great for the builder but not so much for the sailor/consumer. Maybe the big players will bail but that doesn't appear to have hurt the A-class one bit. I'm not worried, formula will be just fine.

Replacing hulls is cheaper than losing sales due to a lack in confidence. While I can see the idea, demanding that boats be built to advertised specs is not asking too much.

"Be just fine" is the understatement of the decade. SMOD is a money grab, pure and simple, with no redeeming factors that can't be found in a normal O.D. class, and many more negatives.

Once again... Dave gets it wrong (grin)
In defense of SMOD!

There are advantages to SMOD.

A rec sailor could care less if their boat is Formula or SMOD.... All they care about is warranty and replacement parts cost and availability. So... they are paying the builder for his reputation and the dealers reputation and service. The fact that there are lots of xxx's at the club or sailing on the lake computes to the rec sailor as ... "this must be a good boat. everybody seems to get one."

A racer buys the boat in a SMOD class for the same reasons as the rec sailor. In addition, You place a huge value in having LOTS OF Boats in the class who go racing.. You are ALSO buying the manufacturers support for the racing game. You place a HIGH VALUE on the boats all weighing the same... you place a HIGH VALUE on the next sail that you purchase is the same as your old one.... AND your competitor gets the exact same gear that you have. So, you are willing to pay a premium for the SMOD race class on the initial boat and the replacement bits.

You are also paying for service beyond the warranty... Things like a gear wagon at a big regional event. Charter boats for Nationals or Worlds. Paid staff who organize the volunteers to make the major events happen.

When the sailing numbers cratered... the business and racing model had to change and builders spend less money on racing support and now support racing in different ways... Lots of long time racers have very bitter experiences with this transition. The Laser class is in chaos with crap boats built over the last couple of years and now a huge legal crisis that could get the boat kicked out of the Olympics in September. You now have a Torch boat which is identical to a Laser with an upside down class symbol built by the original builder. SMOD that has gone really badly!!!

To make any of these models work.. You need a builder who turns out a quality product year after year and supports it. You need racers who have a clear idea what the class is about and show up for the regional and /or national/international schedule

So, in 2012, ISAF insisted on a SMOD for the Olympic mixed multihull class so that they (and the builder) had control of the equipment used for the racing class... just like the ol days. Why? because they believe that it is easier to control the builder then the sailors who continually try to beat the rules (cheat in ISAF's view) to get an edge (see US headsail for China)

So, We now get to choose ... Does the SMOD or Formula support the kind of racing that you want to do.
YMMV

The critical thing is to understand what you want and how much you are willing to pay for your game... keeping in mind that your fun completely depends on a bunch of other racers choosing the exact same thing that you do. The N17 class has it made in this respect.. The Olympic Gold Medal makes it clear what the class is about and racers who join the class know the costs to play and what the class is about.

IMO... I think the Hobie 16 class (SMOD) and the F18 class (Formula) get it right and are good deals for cat sailors!

Mark,
O.D. and SMOD are not the same and you don't even mention O.D. in your ramblings. It's not an either/or proposition.
Olympic classes are so far removed from normal sailing it's almost irrelevant.Nobody HAS to choose anything. You've been preaching the doom and gloom for going on 2 decades now.

p.s. "To make any of these models work.. You need a builder who turns out a quality product year after year and supports it."
Good luck with that. Sure ain't Nacra. N-20 is a great example of the unmitigated failure that is SMOD.

Todd

Your problem with SMOD is that you don't see any leverage on the builder.... The I will vote with my feet to another builder if you screw me and or the class is not available. There is a time honored solution.... Form a strong class association and own the rights to the design and license it back to the builder.

Laser has three builders and so by usual definitions is OD.. But See their problems. The class does not own the design. Kirby owned the rights until he sold them and then things took a turn south with one of the builders choosing to screw everyone. So... this OD model is blowing up in front of our eyes.

If the builder goes sideways or looses interest.... SMOD or OD won't matter.

So, I think the key is to make sure that the Class Association owns the rights to the build and design... Then they can go find another builder (SM) If the sailors can't form that strong class assn.... they are taking a chance... The F18 class is strong and owns the class rule and the builders buy into it and the class approves the builds.

The Hobie 16 class does not own the design but they keep chugging along... The strong class association keeps the builder happy and vice versa so it can work as designed.

I did not own a Nacra 20... never liked that boats lines. I never thought the telephone pole like omohundru carbon mast made sense on that boat. However, the failure of the OD class was in my view at least as much a fault of the owners who could not and still can not agree on what the class should have been about.
So...I would say... the builder and the sailors screwed up the Inter 20, Nacra 20 whatever class. SMOD was only part of that story.

I don't want to buy garbage from a builder with no support. But, I also don't want to drive the builders out of the market over small variances that have no real negative outcome (other than perception, which is their long-term problem).

Mike

I don't see the weight of a boat platform any difference than, say, fuel mileage on a new car. If it was sold with a particular specification and that specification isn't met, it's a problem. It's not hard to build an F18 at minimum weight. In fact, the rather heavy minimum weight was established so it was very easy to build a durable boat within that limit with fiberglass. The manufacturers, in turn, try to include as much reinforcement as possible to make their boats as stiff and strong as possible to just slide in under the minimum. The only time this is a problem is if they get it wrong because they pushed the limits. The boat measuring at, or slightly under, weight is a specification that I would expect the boat to meet.

It's much better than some of the other classes of boat where the same boat may weigh 20 or 40 lbs different from year to year (those manufactures are lucky that weighing boats wasn't a regular occurrence)...but I still expect it to be at or below that specified weight.

+1. Yes the N20 class association as a whole had issues but really not that many. Our biggest compliant was parts support from Nacra (that hasn't changed) and sail variance from the loft-similar to Jakes post about weight, with no independent sail measurement rule no one was able to check the sail conformed to the non-existent class rules. Also, Nacra had very little interest in running manufacturer sponsored events (unlike the Hobie 16). Followed by the F18's beating the N20's at the distance race game, primarily because the F18's had full blown pros on board, the class started loosing members and fell flat when the major East Coast distance race was cancelled.

The F18 works because the sailors have control over everything, including the events, i.e the way sailing ought to be. From what I know of the H16 things are very similar with the class taking the lead and Hobie being supportive of their events.

Nacra may do a better job this time around with the Nacra 17, but I know my faith is lost. For example, they specify Nacra parts on the rigging guide (http://www.nacra17class.com/rigging-part-list/), I'm sure it's ISAF mandated but some of it is just silly; I should be able to use whatever main halyard ring I want that doesn't affect speed one bit, but it does if I can't get a ring in the first place to go sailing.

Finally, I don't see the fleet size growing stateside to make it worthwhile for the average sailor. The same teams are racing in the F18 fleet so why would I buy a Nacra 17? Yes it's faster, we're probably better suited to it, but there are ZERO used boats available and I'm not a trust fund kid.

P.S-At least the 17's have a set of up to date class rules, a real website, and an extremely useful rigging guide. Hopefully they keep the momentum post 2016.

Maybe we can get a worthy sample of the N 17s in Florida weighed during the 2013 NACRA North Americans on Pensacola Bay, October 10 - 14.

Has Nacra started dispatching carbon masts yet or are they still supplying ali rigs?

Carbon masts are being delivered at the Worlds.

God I hope they're sorted, can you imagine **** that would go down if they were exploding at the worlds.

[quote=samc99us
Finally, I don't see the fleet size growing stateside to make it worthwhile for the average sailor. The same teams are racing in the F18 fleet so why would I buy a Nacra 17? Yes it's faster, we're probably better suited to it, but there are ZERO used boats available and I'm not a trust fund kid.

P.S-At least the 17's have a set of up to date class rules, a real website, and an extremely useful rigging guide. Hopefully they keep the momentum post 2016. [/quote]

You have contradicted yourself a bit there.

You complain that every boat has to be the same, down to the last shackle. then say that you are not a trust fund.

Lets say that you go out and buy a new F18 AND a new N17 today. They would both be expensive but able to compete at the front of the fleet.
In 3 years time you decide to get a boat with a cooker, beds and toilet so decide to sell your beach cat fleet. Which of the two boats will still be competitive? which will have depreciated more?
there will always be more F18s on the market because their front of the fleet time is less

the N17 costs more, but is better value for money

Hall Spars - they went through a number of iterations for testing before production. I expect they'll be sound.