Steve,

Another great post!

You said:
>> Don`t know the I-17R, but have seen it on the Inter web-site, nice boat. I don`t know it`s specs, I presume it`s a bit heavier than Taipan / F16, or you wouldn`t be asking.

Here's a comparion of I17R vs Taipan F16:

(Most I17R data taken from performance web site, Taipan data is approximate based on AHPC's data for T4.9 on it's web site and my estimating changes for the F16 version)

I17R:

Length = 17' 5"
Width = 8' 2.5"
Mast = 30' 4"
Main = 170 sf
Weight = 335 lbs (my estimate from ISAF; some claim it's only 315)
Righting/heeling moment ratio of: 116
(my calculation - main only, crew wt 170 lbs on trap)

Taipan F16

Length = 16' 2.5"
Width = 8' 2.5 "
Mast = 28'
Main = 157.5 sf
Weight(*) = 230 lbs
Righting/heeling moment ratio of: 115
(my calculation - main only, crew wt 170 lbs on trap)

If I've got the data close and done the calculations right the mathematical basis for their stability is nearly identical but the greater mass of the I17R might allow it be get through chop better in ligher winds but the Taipan would do better accelerating in gusts. Still, this is math and theory; practical testing is more important. Steve, I appreciate your taking a stab at an I17R vs Taipan 4.9/F16 comparison but you are disadvantaged in not having had the opportunity to sail them both. So, to reiterate the question: anyone else been lucky enough to sail them both and compare (and under what wind/wave conditions)?

Regarding high aspect sails with less chord you said:
>> Don`t think we should be studying your sailplan under "hydrodynamics" unless you want to know how it behaves while submerged ! Aerodynamically you`re correct though . High aspect wings on aircraft with less chord are more efficient at producing lift than low aspect, but are more sensitive to angle of attack & are easier to stall (detach airflow).

You mean you don't routinely sail your cat inverted to check out the hydrodynamic efficiency of the sails? Maybe that explains the difference in sailing philosophy between US sailors and you ozzies!
Thanks for the explanation and confirmation my instinct was right.

You also said:
>> They also produce LESS lift than low aspect sails AT LOWER SPEEDS, however their higher efficiency compensates for this, so a low aspect sail will feel more powerful, but have the power closer to the boat, where you want it in high winds, while a high aspect sail will generate more lift higher up, making it better suited to lighter winds. That`s why it`s important to have your rig set up so that the top of the main twists off in strong wind, to depower the top of the rig & allow the lower half to produce the power, thereby staying upright.

Great input. The issue you raise with twisting the top of the main for higher winds is critical, I agree (same in windsurfing). This raises another whole topic which I feel is important as well: mast stiffness. It is my believe that most US masts tend to be quite stiff, which can make it harder to twist off the main with the downhaul interactively from the trap or tramp (without damaging the sail). This may be less of a problem with longer masts than shorter ones. It seems with these really stiff masts, prebend is the only way to adjust twist easily but it obviously doesn't let you do that dynamically. I don't know how how stiff the I17R mast is since it's fairly long and carbon fiber, but I believe that most Hobie aluminum masts are very stiff. Anyone have input on the I17R's mast stiffness and if it's easy to control sail shape and twist easily via downhaul?

Regarding comparing Taipan and Mosquito:
I really enjoyed your comparison as well as your superimposed diagram! You raise an interesting option: I would think that the standard Taipan sails would do quite well in light and medium wind (even for a non-expert) but might become challenging (for non-experts) in higher winds for the reasons you described. It would seem reasonable then to get a second main made specifically for higher wind conditions (obviously for recreational use and not for racing) which looks more like a Mosquito sail (less area up top, smaller overall sf, maybe slightly flatter draft) - this would make a lively Taipan more controllable in a big blow wouldn't you think? If someone did that, do you think a Taipan would tolerate the 28-30 kt winds that the mosquito can take (obviously assuming the sailor has the skills to take a Mosquito out in those conditions)?

You also said:
>> If you`re sailing in high wind & waves a lot, I`d pick the longer boat, even if it`s a bit heavier. I do have a problem if it`s 50% heavier though, I think there`s a fine balance between all design elements which either make a boat a pleasure, or a pig.

So my final question to you is: Sounds like you were leaning to the I17R for higher wind/waves given its 1 ft longer hull and 100 lbs heavier weight (46% heavier). But don't forget it has a 2' 4" taller mast and 12.5 sf larger main. Obviously a smaller main could be put on either. Given the above, any change in which you think would be better?

Thanks again for the great input,

Jerry

Mary,

Thanks, and no, I'm not going to decide based just on theory (or looks!). Getting a handle on the theory does help me understand sailing behavior, particularly when the theory agrees with what people's predominant experience with a boat. Ideally my heart and my brain will agree! If they don't, then I've really got problems...

Thanks for your sympathies,

Jerry

Bob,

Thanks for asking.

I've looked most closely at the I17R and the Taipan 4.9/F16. I've heard great things about both these boats from many credible sources. They both look like terrific boats and both perform great according to so many people. There are some major differences in design approach and the tradeoffs made in each case but obviously the designers knew what they were doing because both approaches work well. There are design and philosophical differences which may favor one vs the other in specific wind/weather conditions; harder to say if one is much better than the other in the majority of conditions.

Neither of these designs are popular in my area so local fleet issues don't apply in either case.

I haven't yet learned as much about other F16 choices (ie, Stealth F16 and Blade F16) just becuase in general they are newer and there are fewer of them around, but from what little I know they sound like very good boats as well.

Tough choice!

Jerry

ps - good thing you're not located out here; if you were sailing either of these I'd have to pick the OTHER to have ANY CHANCE of being competitive (ie, in a DIFFERNT FLEET!)

Bob,

Thanks for your input.

You wrote:
>> If you go by hypostasis based on false premises, you end up with a P-16 being a better design than a M-20… like in one of the posts above.

I hope you weren't getting this from my post comparing the M20 to the P16. It wasn't my intention to conclude that an M20 was inferior to a P16! My post was only trying to rationalize two disparate findings:

1) Mark Schneider wrote:
>> light boat with crew will be stopped by large waves...
so you loose your attached flow on your sails and cannot respond quickly enough with the sheet to keep the boat going. A heavier boat with same crew will have more momentum and a greater chance to maintain some speed and keep flow attached. Robbie Daniels who race a Tcat and raced a prototype M20 for some time reported this behavior. He wasn't sure if developments in sailing technique could compensate in those conditions for the loss of mass.

2) Wouter wrote:
>> Why does a 122 kg M20 with 150 kg crew on board suffer from lack of momentum while a 135 kg Prindle 16 with 150 kg crew on board doesn't ? This is considered a lightweight baot the latter a normal weight boat. The momentum difference between both is less than 5 %.

My only point was that if you're going to compare a "light" boat with a "heavy" boat then all other parameters must be comparable except for weight. So it would be fair to compare a heavier F18 to a lighter F18HT if both had same rig and sail dimensions, sail geometries, hull shapes, etc. Not fair to compare a 16' boat with a 20' boat, expecially boats with different rigs etc. That being said, I do think that ANY design has tradeoffs and limitations and it IS the observation of skilled sailors that the M20 has some undesireable characteristics in light wind and chop/waves. No boat is going to excell above all others in all conditions. This doesn't make the M20 inferior (what a GREAT BOAT!). I'd be interested in hearing from others what they think causes this M20 behavior if their opinion differs from my arguments. Also, what other boats experience similar behavior in people's experience? My guess would be F18HT's as one example unless their hulls are really good at piercing the waves.

Jerry

Hi Steve,
Let me tell you how it really was on Day One of the Steeplechase. There was 5.5hours of double trapeze wind that day for everybody in the race. It was not light and shifty. The wind started out from the NE and made a gradual swing to the E and then to the SE just like the weatherman said it would by mid afternoon. The SC20TR sailed out of sight from the rest of the fleet in the double trap conditions. In the ocean, where it can happen, it usually takes about seven miles for one boat to sail over the horrizon from another. There was about 30 minutes of no trapeze conditions as the wind gradually decreased to sero from the SE. Then there was about 30 minutes of paddling to the finish line for the first boat to finish. WE covered 65 NMi in 6.5 hours and sailing 50 miles of it to windward. Does that sounding like drifting to you?
The race committee had to sit there for another four or five hours waiting on other boats to finish. If you were the race committee and being pestered by mosqitoes as you waited, it would be easy to write the race up as being mostly a drifter the first day because those drifting conditions caused you much discomfort and to miss supper.
On the second day we did turn over but only after the leeward rudder broke off while running aground in a hard over, bearing off, position. With no rudder the boat rounded up slowly and rolled over on its side like it was in slow motion. Righting the boat did take longer than normal. At first we threw the drag chute out planning to do the water start quick righting thing. After trying this for a few minutes, it became obvious it was not going to work because the bows would not swing into the wind because the mast top was aground, water depth was 2ft to 3ft. Then we had to retrive the drag chute and put it away. Next we had to execute the shroud extension system to right the boat. This worked and the boat came up with the spinnaker still up and spinnaker sheets tangled everywhere like around hulls a couple of times and behind dagger boards etc. It took a few more minutes to get the spinnaker sheets straightened out but finally we were cleaned up and on our way again with only the windward rudder working. When we flew a hull which was often in these conditions, we had no steering, but we had boats to catch and time to make up. We learned quickly to make the boat bare off by easing the spinnaker sheet. Many boats turned over thay day. Some boats turned over more than once. It was a wild ride, 35 miles, to the finish line but we passed four or five boats and none passed us. This is how it really was, Steve, sailing on the boat that won the race.
Bill
Ps; Steve, there is a 400 pound ARC boat, rather than the 550 pound boat we were sailing, called the ARC22. It is 12ft wide with a 38ft tall mast. It has a PN of 57.3 and it goes down a little every year. I think it started out at 59 in 1992. There was a Marstrom Tornado w/spin in the race this year but he finished fourth, I think.
I have no desire to build a 375 pound SC20. I have been there and done my time with the SC20. In many years of sailing distance races on a 450 pound SC20, I was beaten by a single handed Tornado once in a drifter, 40 miles in 10 hours. I do not need to prove that point again. The SC20 is the only US built catamaran to win Yachting Magazines OOAK Regatta.

Bob,
The point I was making is: The increase cost of carbon fabric required for the F14 would only increase the fabric costs by a few hundred dollars.. Substituting one cloth for another cost almost no time.. Also the skill level isnt extended greatly..

I grew up in this hobby when it was usual to start in a CLUB junior fleet with 120 boats on the line.. Thats club not state or national.. This happened was also happening at another half dozen clubs, at the same time, all within 20 minutes drive..

Today if one sees a fleet of 10 its a big fleet.. I realise there are many factors in the decline.. My gut tells me the demise of home building is one cause.. Not the only cause but one.. I suspect if a culture of home building can again be encouraged we may see a revival in the numbers of boats..
BUT telling everyone its too difficult or expensive is not going to help nor is it correct..

As for my business knowledge.. Bob be sure you know the resume of the other person before you suggest a lack of business knowledge..

regards

Stewart

Bob :
Thanks for putting me straight without making me feel like an idiot, I can do that all by myself. Good to see you`re so passionate about the boat you own, and came to Bill`s defence so quickly. Just to note : I was not trying to discredit Bill, his designs or his sailing ability in my post, was just trying to make a comparison between a "heavy" boat & a " light" one, & was taking info from a race report which was incorrect. (unless you guys always double trap in a "drifter", if so I`d hate to see it when it`s "howling" in your neck of the woods !)
Again, that`s why I did the comparison between my boat (Mozzie)& Taipan. Although they weigh the same, the Taipan`s tall rig makes them quite a lot faster up to 15-18 knots, but when they start backing off we can still push hard, so the difference in speed is less. My whole argument hinges on the following understanding, which might be mine alone : The lighter the boat, the less sail area it needs to go as fast as an EQUAL DESIGN heavy boat. Now, the less sail area it has, the more prone it should be to being happy in strong wind. Simple. (or not, depending on your opinion).
If you`re looking at different design or length boats, it becomes totally subjective & is impossible to come to any conclusions. That`s why I put the question out as to whether a standard rig SC20 down to it`s design weight might not have been faster on the day. Not a question I need an answer to, just illustrating my point. Come to your own conclusions.

So now that leaves me with Bill :
Apology for drawing my own conclusions from the race report, won`t do it again.
One theory states that with one less rudder, you had less drag & so must have been faster ! (Ask H16 sailors why they pull up one rudder downwind.) Don`t take offence, just my sense of humour getting me into trouble again.
Again, I was under the impression from your many posts that the SC range was built out of low-tech materials & methods to keep costs down. Now, In SA we understand low tech materials to be chop-strand mat with polyester resin, which is how the Dart 18 is built. What we understand to be "high-tech" is vacuum bagged epoxy foam sandwich, with a LITTLE bit of kevlar or carbon thrown in for reinforcement, which is how the Mosquito is built. Dart hulls weigh 48kg each, Mosquito hulls weigh 22kg each (and plywood hulls are 18-20kg, so one could deduce that plywood is the most high-tech of them all !) Knowing the Auzzies their boats are even lighter. So once again I was drawing my own conclusions based on my own understanding, something I`ll be more careful of in future.

And now onto the ARC 21 vs Inter 20 comparison :
"ARC 21 @21’-6” weighs 400 lb, 33’ mast, 282 sq/ft main/jib, 346 sq/ft spinnaker.
I-20 @20’-0” weighs 390 lb, 32’ mast, 246 sq/ft main/jib, 270 sq/ft spinnaker.
The ARC 21 is 1’-6” longer, a foot taller mast, 36 sq/ft more in Main/Jib, 76 sq/ft larger spinnaker…yet is only 10 lbs (doubt if the sails are included in either boats weight) more than your “lighter” I-20. Plus the ARC is Epoxy/foam sandwich, and the I-20 uses Vinyl ester resin/foam sandwich (not as strong). "
Thanks for that, Bob, how do I get my hands on one ?.

Bill, you still need to convince me that a 17ft boat with more sail area than a F18 can be sold as a beginner`s boat !

Cheers
Steve

Hi Jerry,
Well, I`ve sailed neither ! Just looking at the specs you posted on both :

Personally I`d prefer the lighter boat (but you knew that already).
To justify 46% extra weight for 1ft extra length by adding sail area is where the design philosophies go in different directions, and you know which way I`d lean towards. However, the I-17R, due to it`s longer length should have more bouyant hulls, so it may be better suited to carrying it`s extra power, and could be better in waves (here extra length is an advantage, less tendency to "hobby-horse" althought Taipan is so well designed (By ex-Mozzie sailors ) that it probably does what the Mozzie does in waves, only better, which is to punch through, over or under them without a loss in speed. (No-one said it was a dry boat.)
Smaller boat should have lower sheet & control line loads, if you`re a 145lb weakling like me you`d go smaller, (although an article in an Auzzie mag stated that the Taipan`s downhaul control was a "hand-crunching" experience, similar to that of the Tornado, due to the wing mast they have.)

Just buy one of each, and see which one you prefer, then you can tell us all. I doubt you`d be unhappy with either.
Cheers
Steve.

Parting shot : If boats were women, you`d pick the one 100lb lighter, no matter what the additional cost !

Don't forget to include the crewweight.

I-17 R solo = 225 kg overall
F16 solo = 180 kg overall

Ratio = 225/180 = 1.25 % heavier instead of the 46 % that you gave.

I wouldn't get a different main for your boat untill you've sailed the standard one a few times in high winds. With a properly cut main and the right trim actions you may find there is not need.



I-17R versus F16 ; the question


I think the I-17 R is everything the owners claim it to be (with the exception of the issue around weight). Brobu is very happy with and he is up to speed with it. By all means it is a good boat. I feel a little funny about nacra using the F18 boards for the I-17 especially since its righting is so different as a singlehander. I think both the I-17R and F16 in solo setup will notice the lack in momemtum in relation to doublehanders.

The F16 and especially the newer ones are all we hoped they would be (to bad I can't quote the test results but may the lord strike me down if I'm lying or deceiving here). One example I can give Geert (Taipan sailor in NL) was T-boned lats september by a Hobie Tiger with considerable speed and the damage was a crack, not a hole, just a crack that he fixed with a piece of tape to complete the regatta. His boat is now in repair. These lightweight babies are not fragile.
There isn't much difference between the I-17R and F16 in controls and trim tools. There may be some difference in momentum but with less drag the F16 need less momentum to continue as well. 25 % may sound like alot but it the low drag may well nullify this difference. Formulae roughly suggest that the I-17R has 10 % more water friction drag for given speed as well.(there are more forms of drag so the total may be more)

I seriously suspect that the difference between I-17R and F16 may be small indeed if at all noticeable. I'm conservative so lets assume it is noticable under specific conditions with large waves and no wind (not very regulary encountered)

On the otherhand. I-17 R sail area is only slightly less than 10 % more than the F16 and its mast is only 7 % longer.

When looking at the drags I suspect the F16 to have the edge in flat water and light winds conditions (more frequently encountered)

These differences will always remain between designs. Just decide which you think it most important.

With respect to controllability in heavy air. There is either no difference (righting ratios) or the edge is slighlty towards the F16 because of lower sheetloads and the generally shorter boards (less tripping). I for one have never heard or experienced the Taipan becoming difficult in heavy winds.

Wouter

Hi Stewart

“As for my business knowledge.. Bob be sure you know the resume of the other person before you suggest a lack of business knowledge..”

I didn’t mean to insult your business knowledge, Just pointing out some of the hurtles the US built boat manufactures have to jump over. Steve lives outside the US, and things might work different there, I was trying to bring these factors to light to answer his question of why ARC did not build and market a 20’ boat as light as the Tornado. I am sure there are differences between the US, Australia, and S. Africa regulations as to what a catamaran manufacture would have to adhere to in order to legally operate.

Bob

Hi Bob,
"I didn’t mean to insult your business knowledge, Just pointing out some of the hurtles the US built boat manufactures have to jump over. Steve lives outside the US, and things might work different there, I was trying to bring these factors to light to answer his question of why ARC did not build and market a 20’ boat as light as the Tornado. I am sure there are differences between the US, Australia, and S. Africa regulations as to what a catamaran manufacture would have to adhere to in order to legally operate."
I`m sure there are many differences, my point is that, if you already have the moulds for a hull design, you could build it out of a variety of materials if you wanted to. All the costs a boatbuilder incurs are there, whether he builds fibreglass boats or epoxy boats, no difference except more skilled labour required, and higher material cost for more exotic materials. Subsequently you & Bill have educated me to the fact that ARC products ARE already epoxy foam, and not straight fibreglass hulls, also interesting to see that the ARC21 is not that much heavier than I-20. What makes a boat successful in the market is not always the design features or speed of the boat, but in some instances it`s the marketing drive behind the product. Gone are the days where the quality of the product speaks for itself. One only has to look at Hobie & how they have owned the market through strong marketing skills, rather than product superiority.They make good boats & market them well. Are there better boats ? Maybe, but none that sell as well, which makes you wonder. We could all learn from them, except that cat-sailing, and sailing in general worldwide is in a decline, so no-one is going to spend advertising money.
In SA things are VERY different from US and even Auz. We can put a Mosquito together, 16ft spinnaker boat weighs less than 100kg, for less than the price of a new Laser would cost here. The more local content the less we have to import, and we don`t have to pay some "one-manufacturer" class high royalty fees. We have all the controls of a Tornado, Epoxy foam hulls, Mylar sails. A Laser has 2 pieces of string, ONE fibreglass hull, and a piece of dacron the siz of my jib. And in SA we don`t have to "pay ourselves" minimum wage, what is that, the American government trying to prevent you from doing things for yourself, like building a boat, for fear that it might take a job away from a boatbuilder ? I`ve heard stranger things, but this one`s unique. I suppose we all have different situations to deal with, and would probably laugh at eachother`s unique set of problems since we don`t understand them from our own perspectives.
I can imagine the scenario : you pay income tax on the money you take home from your job, then have to pay tax again on the money you have to pay yourself to build the boat. Don`t let an African government get hold of that idea !

Cheers
Steve

A big digression: How about paying 24% V.A.T on the materials you use in the boat. When it is finished, you have to pay more tax becouse you now own a nice boat.
Of course the value of the boat is set much higher then the sum of all material costs..

You guys build your own Tornado's down in South Africa ?

Reports from other boats on the first day indicate that the double-trap conditions for them lasted about three hours, from 9 a.m. to noon. The wind then began to die rapidly until it got down to about 3-4 knots. It died completely at about 4 p.m., after the SC20 was already on the beach.

Apparently, the wind began to die first for the boats farther back on the course, while the Supercat, several miles ahead continued to get wind. So if Bill is correct, he and Eric were sailing most of the time in heavy air and the rest of the fleet was sailing most of the time in light to no air and doing a lot of paddling.

Therefore, it is hard to compare the performances of the various types of boats, because they were sailing in different wind conditions. Obviously, it was the superior speed of the Supercat 20 in the heavy air conditions that earned it the huge lead and the benefit of being in the good wind longer.

It could have just as easily have worked the other way, with the wind dying first for the lead boat(s), giving the rest of the fleet a chance to catch up.

Varying conditions in different sections of a long-distance course, or varying conditions for the whole course during the race, are also why it is not feasible to apply the wind-factor Portsmouth ratings in a distance race.

Rolf,
We have a company that builds Tornados, Collins Fibreglass, who also build the Dart 18 under licence. They only build to order, which is not often given the cost.
Most of the top Tornado sailors by 3-5 year old Maerstrom boats from Europe though, I`m not sure if the SA T`s are as good, but this would lead me to believe they aren`t. To be as good as a Maerstrom T takes some doing, by anybody`s standards.

We have a builder in Cape Town who builds the Mosquito in Epoxy foam sandwich, and a good fleet of wooden boats which are comparable to these, the Mozie is basically a 16ft scaled down T.

Cheers
Steve

Mary,

I can accomplish a reliable 14mph upwind double trapped with my Nacra 6.0. If I did that for 5.5 hours I would have travled 77 miles (longer than the course that day assuming that there was not much tacking back and forth). I would imagine that the 12' wide Supercat could go faster double trapped.

Hi Steve,
You don't have to take my word for the double trap sailing conditions in the Steeplechase. Look at the distance covered and the ET. Sixty five miles in 6.5 hours and 50 miles of that was tacking to windward. That 50 miles becomes 71 miles sailed across the water so the total distance sailed over the water was 71 plus 15 equals 86 NMi in 6.5 hours leads to an average speed of 13.2 knots. That's not bad for "drifting", is it?
Once upon a time I listened to exactly what the beach cat sailing public said they wanted, "a boat faster than the Tornado in 1976". I designed and built that boat and demonstrated its superior speed over the Tornado several times for several years. An example sales record is that "ONE BOAT" was sold in Miami, Florida and that was to the Hobie Cat dealer. "Very very few of the sailors that said they wanted the boat, ever bought the boat". That taught me the sailing public does not mean what they say even though they may not know it at the time.
Look at this F14 thread. Sailors say they want a high tech, light weight boat. It sounds good. The fellows in Australia may build some but here in the US, very few will ever be built. In the US people buy things for their hobbies; we don't build things anymore. A beach cat dealer calls it "building a boat" when he assembles a factory boat, puts the beams and tramp on.
I have no idea what it takes to make a boat sell. Building the fastest, best constructed and safest boat does not do it. I think being the first in the business has much to do with it. Having a super sales organization does not do it. Hobie Cat had their most rapid growth when enthuiastic sailors sold boats, H14s and H16s, to their friends out of their back yards.
As to the ARC17 sail area: The boat is a beach cat. the mast is short and the sail aspect ratio low by todays standards. The best way to depower a sloop rig is to take the jib off. If you are a new boat owner/sailor, don't go sailing when there are whitecaps. Learn to sail in below whitecap conditions first; work your way up in stronger winds slowly.
Bill

The answer is: marketing.

In every industry there are examples of a better product being outsold by an inferior product. One thing I've learned about marketing is that you can't underestimate the general public. Harsh but true. That's why simply making the best, safest, most fun boat will never make them sell (although it should make it easier). The public has to hear and internalize the message.

Effective marketing takes tremendous time, smarts, and money. A marketing campaign large enough to make a difference for companies the size of most cat builders would require long range business planning, taking out large business loans, and operating in negative cash mode for a while. Even Hobie's marketing in the US is minimal and well below a maintenance level, let alone a growth level.

Thanks, Steve.

You said:
>> Smaller boat should have lower sheet & control line loads, if you`re a 145lb weakling like me you`d go smaller, (although an article in an Auzzie mag stated that the Taipan`s downhaul control was a "hand-crunching" experience, similar to that of the Tornado, due to the wing mast they have.)

Lower sheet/control line loads sounds good to me. But so does a less stiff mast (such as that on the Taipan) so you don't need to play the lines nearly as much to compensate for gusting conditions.

Regarding the downhaul on the Taipan, as I recall it's only 6:1 vs the I17R's 8:1 (but the I17R needs it with it's stiffer mast). Since the Taipan's downhaul is internal, does anyone know if it's possible to easily ugrade to an 8:1? If one did that would it be class legal or just good for recreational sailing?

Also, speaking of Taipan vs I17 vs Taipan, I did see a test sail report of the I17N vs the Taipan 4.9 by a Taipan sailor (see http://www.taipan-sailing.de/english/ and then look under "Archves" for Nacra I17). They noted that there is no positive mast rotation control (I assume they mean over-rotation?) on the I17N. Questions: does either the T4.9 or I17R have mast over-rotation and in peoples experience is this really useful?

You also said:
>> Parting shot : If boats were women, you`d pick the one 100lb lighter, no matter what the additional cost !

Yes I would, unless she was twitchy and unpredicatable and could surprise you by turning on you unexpectedly to bite you! (which I think in your context, she would not...)

Jerry

Wouter,

Thanks for your comments and your comparison between the Taipan 4.9 and I17R.

Just to correct a minor error in my earlier post, I accidentally posted Righting/Heeling moment for main + jib instead of main only for these boats.

The correct numbers (according to my calculations) are:

Righting to heeling moment for cat rigged boats:

I17R: 127
TF16: 129

If the I17R is only 315 lbs (as some claim by personal measurement on bathroom scales) lbs instead of 335 lbs, then the I17R R/H becomes 124 instead.

Jerry

Hi Jake,
Wow, you should have been at the Steeplechase. You could have won the whole thing. That is really a fast N6.0 you have. How many times have you won the N6.0 US National Championships?
The distances Mary is talking about came from a nautical chart. The distances are in nautical miles not statute miles.
The 50 mile stretch in the ocean was tight to windward. We had to tack out and go East a couple of times to clear islands which made no distance toward the finish line. Jewfish Creek was a real killer this year. The current was ripping West and we were trying to go East. Sometimes when you tacked back across the narrow channel, you found you had made no progress to the East. The race is indeed a Steeplechase and it takes two to three years just to learn the course.
Bill