It's just funny how thin the line is between an FX-one, F-16, and A-cat -- once you get down to the specs. In practice, however, they are obviously very different boats.
This and all you say afterward, I have no complaint with.
Part of my comments are still just to gig Karl.
The other part is that I am peeved with the problems of the performance cat market, I guess.
For many, I may be way out on a limb, but, IMO, the H16 and H17 take more ability, or skill, to sail at a basic level
than the some of the performance classes. When you are out for just an average sail, tacking or preventing a bow dive, for example, take good skills. H16 and H17 are tough as trucks and good setups as beachcats.
Gently sailed, the performance classes tack easier and they wave pierce. They have another whole gear that does take first-class skills -- but that is not gentle sailing.
But what the hay is the deal with the complexity of setup and the fragility of the performance boats?! The A-class is too fragile and carries no load. Some of F-16s were too fragile. Some are parts nightmares. Some are setup nightmares. As FX293 said, the FX mast is a monster.
So, if you want a totally hot boat, then get the bigger performance boat.
If you want a versatile performance boat in a mid-range size for family sailor who wants the option of both easy sailing and performance sailing, you deal with hull fragility, rigging puzzles, or phone poles for masts.
That said, the Falcon may be the beginning of the mid-range performance cats of the future -- looks fairly solid, mast looks right proportion to the boat, rigging looks within the limits of simplicity and intuitiveness. Those virtues in a mid-range performance boat are what will make performance sailing take off.
But also, having said that, I am sticking with the FX. I like the boat. It makes me smile. One day, I will make the riddles of its setup more humane...