So what is the Viper's Texel handicap

Got a regatta coming up in Singapore and trying to ensure that the correct Texel handicaps are used. Already had them correct the A-Cat from 100 to 101, but want to make sure the other boats are right. We are expecting 30 to 35 boats so should be a great turnout.

Now I believe that the Viper should be marked at 103 like the rest of the F16 boats, but Goodall and the local dealer think that it is 104 due to its excess weight.

But what I don't get is that the Viper was designed to the F16 box rule, but the builders/designers for some reason decided to make it more bloated and heavy rather than going for the class minimum weight. That is the only aspect where it differs from other F16 designs.

If it turned up at an F16 event it wouldn't get a credit for being heavier, so I believe that it should be rated at 103. We have a "F16 event" in April, so in that all boats won't have handicaps and where you finish across the line is your result, so you can't have it both ways. That to me is really taking the piss.

So looking to canvass views of what the F16 community thinks. We will be having 6 or so Vipers, and 10 or so Taipans all with kites racing. The guy with the Blade is unfortunately away.

Also find it funny that the Taipan is pushed as the older design here and need to upgrade to a more modern boat, but that boat rates slower!!

And whilst we are at it, what would the Texel rating be for a Taipan with a standard F16 spin, Taipan class jib, but a F16 design mainsail. And also the same boat with a 21 sq m kite.

Thanks!!

The fact is important that when you make your entry to the event that you descripe how you are sailing. If you are going to sail as a F16 then you will have a rating of 102 for the 2 man up. If you are going to sail as a Viper then you need a seperate measurement form where the handycap is calculated specific for that type of Viper.

If you are sailing a F16 event with only F16 then you will not sail with a handycap at all, it will be on elapsed time. First place finish is a first place finish and it cannot be that a heavy boat sails with a handycap in a F16 event.

Only in open events you can have different handycap but then you have to show this with a seperate document otherwise you are sailing F16 with a TR of 100 single handed and 102 double handed.

A Taipan which is not equiped standard needs to have a measurement form with the dimensions and then you can calculate the TR handycap.
In the TR the weight factor is a MAJOR factor.

Regards,
Hans Klok

Im missing something..
If the event is a F16 class the first finishes is the winner. Be it Taipan, Viper, Blade or my bodgy job. So I don't see why a handicap is being used.

If the event is a open race with various classes racing for the one cup. Then the Viper can sail as a F16 in which case its 103 or as a non-F16 and in its own class. It will thus be labeled as Viper the sleepy Taipan!! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

As for the last question.. Have no idea as the boat isn't a F16 in either configurations

The short and simple answer is :

F16 1-up Texel = 101 (and not 100, as Hans says)
F16 2-up Texel = 102

Taipan 1-up OD Texel = 108 (no spi and no new mainsail design are any F16 mods)
Taipan 2-up OD Texel = 107 (no spi and no new mainsail design are any F16 mods)

Taipan 1-up OD with F16 or 21 sq. mtr spi Texel = 102 (but not the new mainsail)
Taipan 2-up OD with F16 or 21 sp. mtr spi Texel = 103 (but not the new mainsail)

If a Taipan has a new mainsail as adopted by the Taipan class a while ago or has any other modifification not allowed by its 2002 class rules then that Taipan has no Texel handicap and can not officially make use of the F16 handicap either. The latter is the result of the F16 class rules that state that modifying the Taipan in any way, except adding a F16 spi, putting it out of its own 2002 class will void any F16 grandfather status.

Then what Hans says is correct, the Viper should be officially measured by a Texel official or an official accepted by Texel committee (ISAF measurers I guess) to get an official handicap awarded. Currently it has none.

If any Taipan owner modifies for example his mainsail to F16 specs then he can't sail with the Taipan jib anymore while making an appeal to F16 status. The Taipan jib is NOT F16 compliant and it is only grandfathered in combination with the (old) Taipan OD mainsail as that is slightly less performant then the new mainsails.


Wouter

The Viper is indeed designed to the F16 rulebox, meaning the Viper is an F16.
On the other hand, by making it a lot heavier the Viper gets a rating of 104, making it compliant to the 1.04 rules (= having a rating of about 1.04). That rating is important in France at the moment. (They are trying to establish an F104 class).

Bottomline, the Viper is heavier out of a selling point of view.

Regards,
Gill

Well,

1.04 is indeed an important rating in france, except that french sailor are using the SCHRS Ratings, not the Texel rating... And Viper is NOT 1.04 with this rating system.

Ciao,
tom.

So let me get this straight. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
F16 2-up Texel = 102
Viper 16 2-up Texel = 103 unless it's a 104
Old Taipan with newly approved main is faster then all of the above. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Could you define precisely what you mean by "faster". There are so many different ways to claim the "faster" title that even Don King could not keep track of it <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

A viper entered an event as F16 will always have a TR rating of 102 double handed.
A rating of 101 single handed (not 100 as mentioned earlier).

Summary:
Every boat entered as F16 in open events will have a TR rating
102 for double handed.
101 for single handed.

When the boat weights 125 kg it will have a TR rating of 104 but it will NOT enter as a F16 to that event but as a Viper and will not sail in the F16 class of that open event. It will sail in the open or own class.

You need a measurement certificate for both configurations to show what the dimensions of the boat are.

When sailing an event with only F16's there will be sailed on elapsed time and NO rating is used.

Regards,
Hans

Isn't it true though that the skipper may choose to enter an open event as F16 and take the 101/102 F16 rating? I'm thinking that Viper owners may consider that their boats are actually just as fast as other F16s and prefer to sail to what they consider to be a more realistic rating in order to promote the view that the Viper is fully competitive as a F16.

Only to people who have trouble noticing that a Taipan OD with spi at 103 is actually slower then a 102 F16 !

The new Taipan main can never make the Taipan rating faster by more then 1 point (rounded off, as difference it is actually 0.58%) before becoming non-F16 compliant.

That means you again buccy !

have you ever been right in any of your postings so far ?

Wouter

To go off on a slight tangent. How can the Taipan 4.9 with new main but no spi rate just one point higher than the F-16 with spi? I assume that is what we are comparing, as the Taipan 4.9 OD class never have gone the spi route.

Yes ofcourse people may choose, i am not saying that. I only try to make clear that there is a difference when sailing an open event and sailing a F16 event.
You have a choise with the Viper at 125 kg.

Say, when is that regatta? I just found out that I may be in Singapore the week of March 10.

MarkMT (and anyone else who is interested), Singapore regatta dates coming up are:

Feb 23/24 - Monsoon Cup (also raced with yachts, sportboats, J24s and other lead poisonous things)
Mar 15/16 - National Cat Champs
Mar 23 - Outermark Race (distance race)
Apr 5/6 - F16 Cat Champs

Send a PM, or contact Alice Lim through this website: http://www.prosail-asia.com/ Sure to get you on a boat.

Cool. Even if I could get on the water to take photos I'd be thrilled (no sailing here in March <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> ). I will update you as my plans firm in the next few days.

So, if the Viper was designed to the F16 rule, and meets all the requirements then it should race on:

F16 1-up Texel = 101
F16 2-up Texel = 102

We don't have any scales at our club so weight cannot be verified (but it does "feel" a lot heavier), and there aren't any measurers locally. Giving itself a rating of 104 isn't really justified until it has an official measurement cert to qualify that number.

The fact is that in both ways you will try to do your best to get a measurement certificate. This will ban every discussion. If the Viper has a measurement certificate then you can say what the TR can be. It is designed as a full spec F16.

Regards,
Hans

Exactly.

If a Viper owner can present a measurement cert stating all up weight then it will get a SCHRS rating with that weight AS A VIPER.

But if you enter the Viper as an F16 then you sail on the F16 rating.

Looks like the can of worms is now open.....

How many boats would be affected if F16 migrated to 104?

Then the French fleets could be incorporated, the Viper would fit properly and with the slight increase in weight the class would be of interest to larger builders.

No worms. We've talked about this before. F16 is F16.

F16 is F16 and 104 is something very different. All discussed and explained earlier
Ref: http://www.catsailor.com/forums/sho...7&an=0&page=0#Post129527

Exactly so how can the Viper be rated as the slowest when in reality the Viper should be at an advantage (faster) over the "new" old Taipan in many/most conditions. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Oops I meant the old Taipan design with "spi" and "new" mainsail (original jib) non-F16 compliant. Sorry for the misunderstanding. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

????
Macca... Why would anyone want a slower heavier boat?

There is nothing to be gained in the F16 migrating. Fact is even you could build a F16 to weight.

What is amusing is AHPC built a F16 to weight without carbon for decades.. Now claiming it cant build one to weight!!

I was under the impression AHPC were continuing to strive for minimum weight as non-F18 parts are slowly incorporated...?

I don't really see the problem from our F16 side. The Viper could be 180 kg and still be a fully compliant F16. Whether it is economically smart for AHPC to go that far needs to be seen however. from our perspective there is no problem. Hell, I sail a 121 kg F16 myself, the only difference being that I'm not bitching about wanting a slower handicap.

Also people need to realize that the Viper as advertized is NOT at 104 under the SCHRS handicap system and therefor is NOT, I repeat, NOT a F104 compliant boat itself. They have to weight the bloody thing down to 132 kg to even get to that rating.

The problem with the French fleets right now is that these designs are non F16 compliant for a score of reasons. Their hulls are too long, their jibs are too large, often their mainsails as well, spinnaker are oversized, etc.

Afterall when you make a boat at 150 kg you'll need to fit a larger engine to get it back up to 104 (under SCHRS) performance. Same with the Nacra I-17 or whatever its name is now.

Also, I think calling these F104 efforts "a fleet" is a bit over the top. Currently they are pairing pretty different designs into a single class. Much like the F16 class did back in 2002. These "fleets" still have a lot of work to do before becoming a serious competitor. The F16 class has got about a 5 to 6 year head start on them and our boats cost less as well.


Wouter

Taipan 4.9 is 107 kg but has little hull volume and small beams. Whilst the boat can be fitted out with a kite, the boat was never designed for it. Viper is designed for the kite and its associated extra loads, has greater hull volume, more robust beams and more structural rigidity. It is also built with minimum exotics to keep the cost down which is important.

What are current F16s weighing in at..... 110 to 115 kg. Why not build a boat with a little extra weight to allow ease of building to min weight and add a small amount of corrector weights that can balance out variations and be removed as the boat gets heavier.
If the class would like to take the next step increasing their fleet numbers, then they will have to make it attractive for the larger catamaran manufactures such as Nacra and Hobie. If they stick with their hard nose attitude towards super light boats using exotics, then it will stay a very small class.
I would not be surprised if in the future we see an F16 ‘manufactures’ class get off the ground, supported by major manufactures and the current F16 class will soon become like the F18HT is to the F18 class.

Well one of the new Vipers snapped off the centreboard today. Big bearaway to go for a reach. Kite wasn't up. Guess those heavy boards aren't quite sturdy enough yet.

And MarkMT, to give you an idea of what to expect based on today and the past couple of days. 12 to 15 knots, flat water, water temp 24 degrees celsius. Absolutely awesome sailing. And seeing one of those new A380s taking off over the top of you is quite surreal. Expect them to drop out of the sky as they are monstrous.

I think you are wrong.

1: Hobie is making their money from rotomoulded kayaks and similar. Their main market is no longer catamarans
2: NACRA is doing their different 17 foot configurations. I dont see them dumping a successful class in the US by creating a direct and more versatile competitor to their own class.
3: There is nothing exotic about building a min-weight F16 at home or in a production environment. But to succeed you need some good design work done and a production environment with skills and good quality control. I want boats built by skilled workers under a good quality control system, dont you? Mulling over your 'exotics' statement, I am puzzled by what is so exotic about vinylester/glass or wood/epoxy construction?

4
Disagree. You probably think about the history with the 18HT in the US? If you re-check that story you will see large differences in how the F16 class is buildt and how the 18HT was introduced.

Well, when the Nacra Infusion was launched in Europe they all broke their daggerboards within something like 6 weeks. Every single one of them. At the end there was not even a replacement daggerboard left in Europe and I think a new batch had to be rushed in. Then they changed the daggerboard design and since then all problems are gone, that must be said too !

However, it shows like nothing else the fallicy of adding minimum weight to class rules to arrive or even garantee at a dependable boat. Not even the 180 kg minimum platform weight and the 3kg/board mimimum daggerboard weight rules of the F18 class were enough to prevent this little situation from happening. And having to replace all those broken parts sure makes no economic sense either when compared to doing it right the first time.

Slack design goals only lead to inferiour products. I've seen that plenty of times in software development and as an engineer. If the designer is not a little bit scared then he will get lazy and careless and more often then not come back with a shitty product.

I once talked to a building contracter and he told me that after 30 years in the business he found out that he made the most money in projects were he had to duck below his intented quotes in order to get the job. Turned out that being scared of losing money on such projects was a great way of focussing his employees in working efficiently.

If we raise our F16 minimum weight to 115 kg or even 125 kg then all Hobie and Nacra will do is bitch that it is still too low compared to their 145 kg products. Basically what they want is for the competition to "go away" by lowering themselves to their level of technology and quality control. As if that is in any way attractive to us. The low minimum weight is actually our biggest selling point together with the proven 1-up/2-up versatility. Why on earth would we consider degrading such an important selling point for a fools hope of attracting Hobie and Nacra to the class ?

I don't think Hobie and Nacra will ever join the F16 class UNLESS they absolutely have too. This irrespectibally of whether we have a 107 kg, 125 kg or even a 145 kg minimum weight rule. I think they are humming the F104 class as well, because then they have to compete directly with the likes of Boulogne who will redesign their boats for maximum performance and to gain an advantage inside the F104 class. I REALLY don't believe that both Nacra and Hobie are interested in having another design, next to their F18's, that needs constant attention in this way. Hell, they never tried to group their 17 footers together before some 3rd party came up with the F104 ! These companies really don't want to subject their 17 foot or singlehander designs to competition from other builders. It will show far too quickly were corners have been cut to maximize profit. And then it become pretty hard to convince a customer that he needs to pay 15000 Euro's or more for their design. Hell even the new SL16 is more expensive then halve the F16's on offer today, despite it being an embarassing low tech glass 16 footer (155 kg !). Even the new upgraded but rotomoulded Dart 16 is breathing down its neck engineering wise and in specs.

Doesn't it strike anybody else as odd that the heavier designs (low tech = cheap ?) are also the most expensive in comparison ? Or that the most challenging rule set (=F16) has lead to the most active fleet the world over between these 3+1 (+1 = SL16) alternatives ? Maybe this is because of the fact that we are "higher" tech (as we are not high tech really) and have a more challenging (=inspiring) rule set ?


Also, I for one refuse to put 25 kg of lead on my mainbeam because Nacra and Hobie can't even outbuild a bunch of (mediocre) amateurs who can build a timber F16 at 120 kg already. Skilled amateurs must be able to acieve a F16 weight of 110-115 kg.

To me both Hobie and Nacra are companies who must come to step up to our level rather then us stepping down to theirs. Because lets face it, their claim that they can't go better then a 115 kg Hobie Wave or a 155 kg SL16 is not very convincing, is it ?

Wouter

Gday Mate,

I snapped a board on my Capricorn some time ago also. This was put down to a manufacturing fault in that particular board. AHPC replaced it promptly without hesitation. My new board and other old board as well as MANY other Capricorns have sailed and pushed their boats hard without problems with these boards. A manufacturing fault will happen when you are producing large volumes. The factory support from them was second to non.

I am sure this Vipers board would be a simular issue and Greg will respond in much the same way.

As for Greg pushing the 104 rating of the Viper at this event, it is pretty clear he is pushing the 104 rule over the F16 rule because he as well as many can see the writing on the wall for the F16 class.

Yes, Hobiecat USA is. Hobiecat Europe manufactures multihulls and are not even considering an F16 because it is not economically viable. They are however are interested in the 104.


Once again, as above. Nacra are also moving towards the 104 with no interest in the F16 as AHPC are likewise. F18 V’s F18ht ?????


Ask the manufactures who do make the boats at min weight and find out how expensive it is for them and how hard it is to achieve. Sure you can build a boat lighter but how durable would the boat be. What is its competitive life span before it gets soft? Carbon masts, foils, stocks, tiller cross arm booms, carbon or Kevlar in the hulls ect are significantly more and to say they don’t is kidding yourself.


Different path, same result. The F16 class was warned about this in the past and chose to ignore, now as a result the 104 is here and will build at a rapid rate, the F16 will become the 16 foot equivalent to the F18ht

If anybody sees the writing on the wall for the F16 class then they are warmly invited to try their luck elsewhere.

I say this because any alternative to the F16 is at this time still miles behind.

If anything, our most serious competitor is the Spitfire class and they too are miles ahead of any alternative like the Viper or the Boulogne Evolution. The Spit class has been around longer then the F16 class and despite that fact the F16 class was succesfully established and has grown to rival the Spits in Europe and has trumped it in all other area's in the world.

With the F104 class being the Spitfire class for over 75% I don't really see great hardships ahead that we didn't face in much more potent fashion in our past.

I think some are seriously underestimating the power enclosed in the F16 concept and class rules. Just look at all the uphill struggle and hardships this class has overcome in the past without any support from a big builder and against the promo efforts of our competition that DID have big builder support. And now that we are established we are certainly not weaker then we were in the past.

Wouter

Again: Texel 104 is different than 104 class based on SCHRS.

<off topic>
Personally I wouldn't mind putting weight to 120 kg's if we would get Hobie/Nacra on board with that move. If Hobie/Nacra would contact GC I believe that there would e ballot and vote as with normal rule change proposals.
</off topic>

In the 8 year history of the F16 class, how are you fleet numbers world wide. I would be willing to say less then the total of 104s that were at a recent French regatta alone. And the 104s class has not even got off the ground yet. What will be the result when AHPC, Nacra and Hobie swing into full 104 production. Should not be to long before they are being compared with the F18s.

I still don't see any relations to F16 as 104 is grouping of boats with similar performance and not a construction/box rule. What happens if SCHRS changes and drops boats out of it?

Also whole question is oranges vs apples, currently 104 is same than racing for example A vs F18 vs big T because they are close in performance. Situation might change if they agree on more formal rules but then they are throwing out some of the boats currently in the class.

Guys and girls don't go off on one as soon as someone dares to challenge the F16 concept, so what, let them, if the manufacturers take the soft poor engineering route of the 104 group then so be it, at least it will sell tough hard wearing catamarans to the public even if they are a little slow and portly.

Joe public is not stupid and when the Blades and Stealths whizz past and then are pulled up the beach by one person, they'll take note and will probably aspire to that next level up on the next boat they buy.

The A class is as strong now as its probably ever been, why do people buy these over priced, light weight rockets when they know that 2 years down the line they will be out of date, beats me but I reckon its that " high tech " tag which counts for a lot so why consider dumbing down the F16 concept.

The F16 concept ticks a lot of boxes for a lot of prospective owners, it fits in well with handicap racing, has a growing world wide fleet with growing fleet races and is very versatile, what more can we want.

Stephen,





The F16 idea was formed in the last week of may 2001, that puts us at under 7 years of ago. More like 6 years and 8 months.

Currently, the US and UK alone have over 100 F16's combined. I haven't done a full boat count in roughtly 2 years, but remote places like Finland, Sweden, Norway and China we have 4 F16 boats each and also 3 boats in Dubai. I don't think there were more then 20 F104 boats at the recent French regatta.

Call me stupid but if a major sailing nation like France can't even put more (dissimilar) boats in one starting field then the total number of F16 boats in just Finland, Sweden, Norway, China and Dubai combined then what kind of class do they have in comparison to the F16 class ?

I think the total number of fully compliant F16 boats world wide (not counting the Aus or NZ Taipans) is somewhere between 150 and 200. Of course more and more Taipans in Aus will cross over and that alone is a major potential growth that is not counted yet. Or do you think the F104 will replace the Taipan class in Australia ? I think the F104 won't stand a chance in Aus and when pressured between choosing between F104 or F16 the Aussies will flog to F16, no doubt about that.





Ahh, but here we have the true core of our disagreement. You think that there is much of a chance that AHPC and Hobie/Nacra will hook up and throw their combined weight behind a rival class to the F16's.

I really don't see that happening. In fact it would be foolish of AHPC to even try such a thing as Hobie and Nacra will only see AHPC as a junior partner that they are rather rid off. All that Hobie and Nacra really wanted was to keep selling the Standard Tiger and Inter-18 boats. It was only because of those pesky little companies like Boulogne and AHPC that Hobie and Nacra were forced time and time again to change their F18 models or even design complete new ones. For them that is an expensive proposition and they will always be trailing behind smaller and more flexible companies like AHPC. I'm convinced that they will see a junior partner like AHPC that way. Although if such a situation would come to pass they would play along long enough for the juniour partner to blow up the F16 class and then pull the plug while having rid themselves of two competitors at the same time. Meaning the F16 class and the junior partner itself who has to recouperate its investments on its own in a collapsed class.

From a political point of view it will be much wiser for the F16 class to stick to its guns and bases and not let such a junior partner have any significant influence on the F16 class. Meaning, stick to the 107 kg minimum weight and see the "junior partner" trying to convince the big builders that it actually has anything to offer that they are interested in. Comparing the standing of the Viper design outside of the F16 class with the very small but yet much more established FX-one and I-17 classes I think the junior partner is overestimating its negociation possition.


But having said all that, I'm not convinced that hooking up with Hobie and Nacra is really AHPC's play here. That is just us here speculating. I think AHPC motives are alot more simple and closer to home, which is the F16 class and their profit margin.

Wouter

Which 104 are you planning to buy Stephen?

Here is an F104 photo. I'm sure this design is faster than the AHPC F16 Viper.

That'll make a nice change from shoveling snow <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

Good, if it brings more people to the sport so we can show them the F16 both on and off the water. The 104 is no scare, I think the concept is too thin to succeed. Since you seem incredibly well informed about the inner working of Hobie Europe, NACRA and AHPC, perhaps you can tell me why they think the 104 is good enough to scrap old successful models and introduce something new and unproven?
Like I said earlier, a comparison between the introduction of the F18 to 18HT is not very valid in my opinion. You will have to point out to me why you keep on comparing those two and how this applies to the F16 concept and the 104.



I have talked with Marcus, Phill and others and know a bit about the challenges. We are doing three strip plank Blades in my garage just now, and weight is a great concern to us. We are not doing a production run to make money, so we can use wood, which is a better material than carbon/foam for the hulls of a F16 or even a Tornado. Just look back at the Gougeon T's and the hype around Marstrøms earlier boats which killed them off. Marstrøm did not build a desent T until 86 or therearound. I think it was Wouter that said earlier that carbon was often an excuse for poor engineering, which is a good point. If you look harder at the issue at hand, I think you will find that you dont need carbon, pre-pregs, autoclaves, kevlar honeycomb etc. etc. to build a lasting, stiff and competitive F16 down to min weight. Weight in the hulls dont neccesarily mean that the boat is more robust or will be competitive longer. With poor engineering and quality it will often be the other way, its competitive life is actually shorter. What is the competitive life of a F18 these days and what was it like in the beginning? Doing it right the first time is better than adding materials and cheap workhours.
I dont understand in what respect I am kidding myself?



We are all doomed to be obsolete becouse our boats are not heavy enough to suit NACRA and Hobie Europe.. Nah, think I'll keep on working on our garage project with technology from the 1940s in good faith that the F16 is here to stay. I think Hobie Europe and NACRA dont have the will to invest in the quality control needed for a min weight F16 (and you dont need carbon to do that). Those two companies will never do an A cat either, for the same reasons, but that class thrives even with the cost of owning a competitive one.
BTW: You can hardly use the F18 vs 18ht as an historic example of F16 vs 104 when the historic facts dont match the present.

Is this the boat Nacra won't build?

Actually Nacra never build that model, it was Melvin and Morrelli who did that and Nacra who handled the marketing and distribution.

Now I'm told that nacra has complete stopped their side of the A2/A3 project although I would like to find more confirmation for that statement.

Hobie did announce to build an A-cat about 18 months to 2 years ago but we never heard from that again.

Wouter

Wouter is on top of it David. As far as I know NACRA did not build the hulls for the A2. If you have other information, it will be interesting to be proven wrong.

1) Nacra and Hobie aren't interested in the 1.04 according to me, they just happen to produce cats with a rating of about 1.04 (long before the 1.04 started to show up).
Mind that the FXOne Extreme commercial doesn't state anything about the 1.04 but states it hopes to give the current F16 boats serious competition...

2) the 1.04 will never be a real formula class as long they have no boxrule. If anyone thinks the Hobie FXOne, the I-17 and Cirrus will have the same performance in every type of weather they are wrong. Differences in weight, mast height, width and lenght of the platform, ....
What if SCHRS changes one parameter in their measurements? The 1.04 class will loose or gain some platforms...

3) The F16 has a rating close to the F18 and A-cat rating. (The F16 rating is closer to the F18 then some F104 are to each other). Certainly in Europe with the big F18 fleets I find it an asset to sail on elapsed time with the F18

Anyway, we'll dig up this thread again within 5 years and check where the F16 class is at that moment.

Gill

As Wouter says. Nacra DO NOT build it. They just sell it.

Hi Taipanfc
My quick reply to your original question/problem would be;
If you have enough entrants to make a separate fleet start go with it. Otherwise, it's a case of handicap racing using the TEXEL rating system as you suggest. If a Viper arrives without a measurement certificate then I think they should have the correct F16 rating depending on the number of crew.
However, if a Viper does turn up with a correct measurement certificate stating their TEXEL rating then they have a choice, either sail as an F16 if there is a fleet or in the handicap class.
This problem does arrive in the UK occasionally at Open Meetings and who's sailing single handed, two up or (F16), usually the sailors sort it out well before racing commences so we all have a good time.
I hope this helps and you have a great Regatta.

Steven

The 18HT comparison is not so good for the USA experience.

The sailors interested in the 18HT class were looking for a boat with performance similar to the A class.... Light and quick. They also liked the development aspect of the class rules. the class formed on the east coast specifically for racers with a really good race circuit that got 10 boats out and that lasted two years. The crashing dollar and life changes for the class core caused it's demise not the boat concept.

BUT these sailors had checked out the new F18's as well (Tigers and Nacra F18's) before picking the 18HT .... They sailed the F18s... and they were not impressed by the boats.... in their view... more of the same... aka a big heavy boat... the F18 was not performing like a 20 (power) and not like an A class (light and easy to manage) Particularly in the wind conditions found on the EAST COAST!!! .. So... they choose the F18 HT.

Now about 4 times as many sailors were F18 inclined sailors... When Hobie annouced that the Tiger would come without the dammed comp tip... (unlike the aborted FOX) you had a huge amount of interest. They thought that the stability provided by Hobie and Nacra made the F18 a certain winner. They argued... tougher boat... will last longer... hold its value... , development was not going to cost them to keep up with the fleet…. For sure... the USA would follow the EU and love the F18. Much like Obama mania... they had a kumbayah sing along. They even shared a NA's in the beginning. It was a transformational time. ....

But then reality check time

The Hobie class assn went their own way... the NAF18's were balkanized.
Yeah... the F18 was not much fun under 10 knots....(most of our seasonal sailing season) but nobody talked about that.
Most sailors were new to spinnakers and for a time the boat was declared fun ... but wind is still needed to make the heavy boat perform. For sure... big fleets would soon appear and that would be fun. Hey... that was the EU experience.... You must have gotten the press release.

But so far... the class is much ado about nothing on the east coast. boats sold... does not mean boats that go racing. Best as I can tell... the NAF18's managed ONE regatta with 5 boats or more on the line all of 2007 on the east coast. Syracuse did a little better with Tiger only fleet.
So, with out major buy in of the east coast sailors... the F18 class is stuck. those that own the boat... only go to a nationals or a regional championship. the rest of the time... they sail something else.

During this 5 year period... the Nacra 20 fleet has recovered a lot of sailors who dropped down to the F18's for the dream.

The distance races give the N20's a real reason to go racing. The F18's.... tend not to show up for distance races.

The A class continued to grow and grew quite a bit (approx 70 US boats at the worlds) (I14 and 505 sailors dropping into the class plus conversions from older two man catamarans ) and TA DA a real demand for the F16 concept emerged slowly and surely over time.

The F16 (Aka Taipan 4.9 with chute) and the Nacra F17 appeared on the US scene about the same time. It has taken a domestic builder and a strong dealer who converted the nacra 5.5uni fleet into the Nacra F17 fleet. (by way of the I20 and F18 two man boats). They have a nice 25 boat class in Michigan and Ohio that goes racing. They have not been able to break out of this region.

In my area.... the sailors would try the Nacra, Taipan or A class. They did not particularly care about the class racing for the boat . If they wanted a chute... they bought a Taipan.... they hated the nacra (too heavy). if they really wanted class racing... they bought an A class. (The FX one appeared and disappeared with the falling dollar. ..)

3 or 4 years later a domestic builder (Blade) is on the scene ... nobody thinks twice about the nacra (or fx1) and the strong Michigan fleet of 25 boats in the class.. .
If the racing class is not already formed and active in your area... the clear choice is the F16. I think most of the sailors LIKE sailing the boat and dabble in racing… so the class viability issue is less important.

If you want a boat to race in a large class... you pick an A class or Hobie 16. (other viable classes exist around the country as well

To me... the message from the history is.

The Hobie 16 racer ( a huge target for any 16 foot class) is simply not interested in ANY spin boat.

The sailing experienc is critical. (20's offer power) The A class... well what's to say./.. the Hobie 16, ease, simplicity, great class with a structure that sustains it)

To the avid cat sailor... (notice I did not say racer) It's all about the sailing experience... first and foremost. the light weight of the F16 is a real plus factor.

A new intro fiberglass starter boat is likely to loose to the Hobie rotomolded escape. If you want more boat….and fiberglass… you probably look at the 18 or 19 foot boats with a tamer rig… in the end… you are looking to put lots of family on the boat.

For the sailors getting a Blade... The fact that you are light and either as fast or faster then an A cat (which is now a large fleet) on your F16 is a real plus for a weekend warrior AND you get the spinaker fun.

IMO, the F104/F16 Viper had best be an equal performer to the taipan’s and blades in the USA or Jill’s garage will be full for a LONG time.

A new concept… like a level rating 104 class will be a non starter. Hobie USA won't support it. Unless, the N17 is grandfathered in... I can't see nacra supporting it either.

The level racing concept is even MORE alien to the US Sailor then Portsmouth/Handicap racing.

(previous incarnations were the Nacra 5.8 and the Prindle 19 the Mystere 6.0 and the Nacra 6.0, the Hobie 20 and the Prindle 19 MX… All were doomed by a clear winner on the water …. I can't see How a builder can sell that level rating notion as fair racing and have anyone believe him. ... Heck... IMO... the negative vibes drove the box rule concept of formula as something that was acceptable alternative to SMOD). Moreover, most clubs would NOT want to divide the small number of racers on the water into yet another sub division.

Time will tell.... It is a shame that the cat world insists on a million solutions to the problem.

Scooby and Rolf,

No, I no just remembered that I'd seen the A2 page on the Performance site. I didn't know that Nacra was just doing PR for the boat. I should have suspected something when I didn't see the A3 mentioned since it has been around for some time. It's always something.

name one boat designed specifically for the 104 class... I can think of boats modified for the class. Hell I could modify a F18 or A to fit the class. Actually perhaps all F18s should be modified to fit the 104 class!! Just think how fast the 104 would grow then!!

As for the clap trap

Next time I come across a Taipan 4.9 I should wonder if Im looking at a myth or boats that are competitive for 15+ years. Pray tell how much carbon is in a Taipan? What none? amazing!!
Next time I look at a home build ply Blade I will stop and awe at the complexity of a 50 year old technology.
Next time I get to glimpse a Stealth, I should bow to how wonderous the builders are.. Ok the Stealth company does a better job than any F18 builder, no question but really who couldnt? Then F18s will morph into 104s soon anyway right?

Or I could just accept your really really biased and this blinkers you.


So the crapola you try and spread to over compensate for lard is, just that crap.

So serious question.. When you making your F18 into a 104 and show us all the way?

I guess we can all push our own points of view here in a virtual space forever....

I however will go and race this year on an F18 in real fleets supported by real manufacturers and with very high quality competition.

Contrary to claims made in this thread there is serious interest from large manufactuers in a F16 style boat but at the moment it's simply not viable for the large builders to make boats at the stated weight, add the issue of the optional carbon mast and you are looking at having an F16 cost more than an F18 which is not desirable from a marketing or practical point of view.

104 seems to be a way to go for large manufacturers for now as it has some leeway for builders to achieve a level rating via differing approaches. It may not be the perfect solution but at least it allows volume manufacturers to enter the market.

I wish F16 all the best and I can see that with the right support and management it can achieve great success. I fear though that it will remain the internets largest class....

Real question would be that would we gain any new builders if would raise the min weight? Bimare certainly wouldn't be there <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />. Also with 104 they can put a new sticker to existing product and F16 even with higher weight they would need to spend money for designing something new.

However I still think that if there would be serious interest among builders to enter the class then I think that class should think about it, otherwise this whole discussion is quite pointless.

This discussion is just that Valtteri, pointless. There are two persons bringing rumours to the table, and they keep coming back with just that, rumours. These rumours are secondary to the F-16 class. Reading these posts reminds me of good old f.u.d. but it is unclear to me who is to gain and it dont fit well with how I know Macca and Steve.

Steve and Macca are both welcome to become members and suggest changes to our rules so we can vote on it after a discusscion with a purpose. But creating a stink here becouse they dont feel the love when posting such poorly tought trough stuff is.. Well.

You correct, you should go make your F18 a 104.. Then you will have even more "real competition".. Say if all F18, Tornados and "A" also became 104s then imagine the class racing!!

Personally I will go sail my mythical F16..

Hi all,

amazing how a thread can go wild, while I am busy doing other things (Working&Sailing) <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />. Great to see some interest from Australians in the Formula 16 forum, I wish we had more input from Aussies more often. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I think expecting tha F16 owners that post here to be supportive of anything but F16, would be unlikely. Afterall we like what we sail, that is why we own F16's and post on the F16 forum. Discussing other classes and ideas is allways welcome, but you can't expect us to support changes to a established class that we are obviously happy with.

As for the need to have Hobie and Nacra manafacturing for the class to be a success <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />. I am sorry but I think slow growth by manafacturers and home builders that are committed to the class is the way to go. I have seen some classes burst on to the scene and dissapear just as quickly.

After all I for one did not get into this class to sail in big fleets, who's rules are dominated by Multi National manafacturers, I would have chosen other classes if that was what I wanted <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />. I sail this class because I want to sail a cat with a spinnaker on my own, that is of a weight I can handle on my own and can be built to weight by manafacturers that care to try to make good boats not larger profits. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

I should finish by saying these are my own personal opinions as a long term F16 sailor. By the way I have to go to get ready for another weekend of sailing <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />.

Guys, you are missing the point.

I am in favour of F16 being a success, however I strongly feel that if you want it to be that then you really need to get the big two involved. Sure you can head down the back yard builder path and hope it grows organically but I don't think it will be as effective as getting the big two on board and utilising the large distribution and marketing power they bring to the table.

At the moment you run the risk of being viewed as the outsiders with a nice idea but no way to implement it accross the market in a speedy fashion required to gain share in a competitive market place.

Wouter, you really need to stop taking hte high ground and actually get out there and go sailing, Show the world the F16 and they will show interest.

I did every major regatta in the Netherlands last year and I never once saw you! How about you do some travelling this year and promote the class. Come to the North Sea Regatta in May.

Yeah sorry typo, was ment to say 6

:-)

The 104 is still very much just a work in progress, however they are attracting some serious interest from manufacutes. At present boats are modified but soon you will see purpose designed boats.

The F16 class started much the same way with modified T4.9s. They even decided to ‘grandfather’ boats that really did not fit the class rules (such as weight, sail area, small rules <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />) to help build their fleet numbers. The Blade and Stealth are purpose built F16s...... Any others? H16 with kite, Spitfire, Mossie ect ...... Don’t count.




The 4.9 was designed for small sail area, small crew weight = smaller loads.

Add kite and extra beam, will add extra loads the boat was not designed for. Those beams are not adequit for the job and AHPC know this.

Tell me, why are all the F16s coming in overweight without correctors brand new????? Is the min weight a bit optimistic. My F18 weighs in (yes heavy) at 175.3 kg and I carry 4.7 kg lead (5kg max allowed in F18 class rules). Most Capricorns vary between 175 and 177 kg. Lead is used to equalise the boat weights. The luxury we have also is the ability to remove weight as the boat gets heavier. It is also not as critical for us to use super light fittings and our boat’s systems can be built with a greater focus on reliability.

Why not set the F16 class weight at 120 or 130 kg. Boats can be built comfortably to this weight with sturdier beams and and more support in the hulls where it is needed. And done so in a more economical way by the home builder and the manufactures including Vectraworks, Formula Catamarans and Stealth.

Boats can hit the water at 115 to 117 or 125 to 127 with 3 to 5 kg off corrector weights added. Thus giving a 120 to 130 kg min weight.




Boat is on the market at the moment and am looking at other options. F16 is interesting but the class is still very amateurish and I do not see a lot of stability or growth in the class in the future. I want to spend my hard earned $$$$ but do not see the F16 as a wise investment at this point in time.

You could always buy a F16 now with the knowledge that you could beef it up to fit into the 104 class, its called hedging your bets.

My bet is that once you had a F16 you would not consider the 104 class as it would mean you would have to cart another 15 odd kilos up and down the beach and you would have to dumb the whole package down to match the other less competitive boats. Mind you starting off with an F16 would be one hell of an advantage as you could ballast it in all the right places.

I have raced F18s, Tornadoes, A Class, Tapian 4.9s and F16s (modified 4.9s). You barley notice the difference 20kg makes to a boat on land or water, particulary with good beach wheels. I can manage by F18 around the beach easier by my self than the 105kg Taipans with cheap rollers. It seems most light weight class' (A Class an exception) don't believe they should invest in good beach rollers and we watch them struggle whilst our 180kg heavyweights are manuvered with ease around the beach.

An extra 20kg will be notice by the manufactures and eventualy the customers back pocket. It will also reflect in fleet numbers as more manufactures climb on board.

I'll take racing in a quaility and profesional fleet any day even if it means at 180kg or 130 kg for a single hander.

6 years of development have seen how many manufactures commit to a dedicated F16? and how many optimised F16s Racing.

I understand your reasoning even when I don't agree with it because last time I checked ALL commericially build F16's underquote any F18 by at least 2000 Euro's !

But that is not all as ALL commericially build F16's also underquote the heavy singlehanders like Inter-17 and FX-one (when both are fully rigged) by almost the same amount. So much for making heavy boats cheaper !

Why are now arguing that F16's are expensive ?

I mean there is indeed general validity of your reasoning but somehow F16's, as things stand, do not not follow that reasoning at all.

The question to you now is what is wrong here, your reasoning or the F16 boat for being so inexpensive ?

Wouter

Wouter,

check this out.


ref: http://www.catsailor.com/forums/sho...er=132676&Main=132506#Post132676

I dont know who is correct here?


Mark, in your historic review of the f18ht class in the US, I think you could have put more emphasis on how important just a single person was for the development and the collapse?

While you are at it, try to get the Tornado class to up the weight by 20kg.

If this is indeed the case then I warmly welcome these large manufactorers to approach the F16 Governing Council and make a concrete proposal of what thet want changed and a solid agreement that they will then promote the (their) F16 over their current FX-one and I-17 boats.

Without it they don't have anything worth negociating over. If they are not willing to do this then they are not serious anyway and we are better off without them.

Lets be clear about one thing here. The F16 class has proven herself beyond any doubt by establishing herself and growing herself to a level that simply rivals any alternative put forward by any big builder (incl. the Taipans) and the F16 group did that without any budget and without any major builder support. Hell we even "created" our own builders (Stealth, VWM, Aussie Blade) to service the class.

As the situation stands now, we don't need to initiate anything towards any builder, big or small, because basically we're the winners here and they are the "runners up".

If they want something or if they are interested in joining then it is they who will have to approach us and make us interested in what they have to offer. I'm sure that the whole Formula 16 class will treat their proposals with great care and deliberation.

But painting all kinds of disaster scenarios for the F16 class simply because of something in our 5 year old ruleset is rediculous. As if our ruleset were indeed anything but well thought out then we would never have come to the point were we are now.


Are we arrogant ?

Probably.

Have we deserved our right to be arrogant ?

Gawd Darn right we did !

We took on any and all competition from FX-one and Taipan to F18HT and came out on top every single time.

So if Hobie, Nacra and others like Boulogne are interested then they know what they have to do.

Wouter

Macca,





That is funny because I did see you !

Also at the Global Challenge; I was actually no more then 5 meters away. None of the Aussie cared to introduce me to you but that is fine.

Also I'm not a major catamaran racer. I'm far more a designer, promoter and class builder. That is what I brought to the F16 class. I could do what I did because of excellent volunteers like Phill contributed what they were/are really good at. Because John and Matt contributed their production facilities and guys like Paul, Rolf and many other filled in the smaller holes.

The F16 class got where it got to it is because we all stood on eachothers shoulders and we all did we all do best individually. And racing is not my individual strong point.

With regard to the North Sea regatta.

That is a BS regatta for any class other then F18's and Dart 18's as the organisation strongly favours One-Design starts and the Open class for cats attracts only the most sorry bunch of dissimilar boats in shameful low numbers.

Personally I'm not a excellent racer but even I have no trouble waxing the ears of some recreational crew on some beat up old Hobie 18.

No I'm not seriously considering North Sea Regatta by a long stretch.

Wouter

Stephen, you are now simply guessing at stuff you obviously don't know sqad about, sorry.

I did all the mathematics (ohhh dirty word) on it and there are several widened Taipans sailing about with full F16 rigs. None of them ever broke down.

Here are the pictures to proof the point.

http://f16.beasts.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=1641

All pics in the middle are a Taipan F16 build and sold by AHPC themselves. There are 4 of these in NL and Northern Germany. They were purpose build that way; wide and with a full F16 fit out.

You can contact Greg and ask for his confirmation. He will tell you that they simply used the same mainbeam and dolphinstriker as that was overdimensioned on the Taipan anyway.

Apart from that we have several modified Taipans that have been sailing as upgraded boats for years now without any issues. And the fact that all alu masted F16 rigs like that on the Blades use the Taipan Superwing mast as well as some other parts. No problems there either. Check the weather conditions at Alter Cup 2007 and GC 2007. If anything was about to break then we would have seen it at those events alone.

I think this proof a thing or two. But mostly that you are completely wrong on these issues.

I'm truly sorry but that is just the God honest truth.

Wouter

Stephen,

Nobody is forcing you to buy and sail a F16.

If you feel that lifting up your F18 by the bow (90 kg) to put the beach wheels under the hulls is less work then doing the same with an F16 (55 kg); then hey ! don't let me stop your life path towards the physiotherapist.

If you don't believe in the F16 concept then don't get into it. There are enough others who do !

If the big builders are not able to build true F16's then that is okay as well. We don't have them now and can service the demand using our own producers just fine. I think the +125 kg builders are overlooking that fact. We got by pretty well without them over the last 6 years, why do we suddenly need them now ? This is a two way street and right now the big boys are not offering us anything of value.

If AHPC feels like you that 20 kg additional weight doesn't make much difference in performance, then GREAT as the F16 rules allows any boat to be overweight anyway. If they feel that we should all just slap on anything from 5 to 18 kg of lead to our mainbeams to equalize ourselves to the Viper then they are living in a fantasy world.

And of course Stephen you can buy a nice 112 kg Aussie Blade F16 round around the corner. If you think 20 kg is no biggy performance wise then why worry about 5 kg ? (= 112-107 kg)

So what is the REAL issue here !

Wouter

The last quote I have of the I-17R (US version with carbon mast) for a European customer was 17.800 Euro I believe. That guys bought a Stealth eventually.

I'm sure the alu masted I-17 is alot cheaper, but I have no firm quotes yet. The thread you provide suggest that the NEW I-17 (how many versions now ?) is over 3000 USD cheaper then any F16 in USA.

Others appear to say this I-17 costs 12.000 USD. I want to know whether that is fully rigged with spi and selftacking jib kit.

Also I'm not to sure whether the VWM Blades are running at 15.000+ USD. Alot of interested parties remember the Alter Cup boat pricing but these were full kevlar boats with carbon daggerboards and rudders and a suit of Glaser sails. Does that 12.000 USD I-17 come with anything like that ? Those Alter Cup boats were specials.

I'm personally not to worried. 12.000 USD is a good price for a boat like the I-17, but I want to see them hold that price beyond the initial promo launch.

From a promo point of view the answer to this new alternative to the F16 is simple. This I-17 has a infusion (F18) mast with a F18 size mainsails. Basically it is a F18 rig on a 17 foot platform. Try singlehanding that !

Or

If you think raising the F16 alu mast at 14 kg (bare sectio) is hard work then try the F17 infusion mast (bare 18 kg = +30%).

We can even start calling it a F18 with a foot of bow chopped off and 25 kg less weight (it is still 150-155 kg fully rigged).


Good luck !

Wouter

Ah, but every class needs critical mass and guru's to get that level. Without critical mass the class is not that attractive and there must be some pioneers that take class to that level. Of course it helps if there is good level competitors in class. I was kind of hoping that you would be one of our pioneers/gurus down under with you experience <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />.

IMHO The weight issue should be seen as someones opinion how to make F16 class better and not go to personal level even if disagreeing with this opinion <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

so again I ask.. when are you making your F18 into a 104?

All,

You need to add a lot more than 15kg to make a F16 into a 104.



As for the extra 20kg that "you barely notice"; I will pullinmg it up the slipway!



Weight is only of use to Steam rollers. I don't want to sail a steam roller.

Ok, so again I am reminded of a what a wise man once told me about arguing on the internet....

Good luck with it guys, I look forward to seeing 100 plus fleets in the near future and everyone competing happily with a mix of carbon and alloy masts, beams etc... All boats will be made by Buddhist monks out of hand grown sheets of plywood and nobody will complain when someone turns up with a set of 3DL carbon sails....

Hi Steve
Just a small point but this is the second time you've said the Taipan was not designed to have a spinnaker. According to Greg's "History of the Taipan" that used to be on the AHPC site, the first time Greg and Jim raced the first Taipan it was already rigged with a spinnaker. It was designed with one from the start.

It's a shame that document doesn't seem to be there any more. The account of them trying to cope with the spinnaker first time out in too much wind was a good read.

you are a unit Wouter, I do talk to Greg and have as little as 2 weeks ago.

Let me quote Marcus since I do not have any clue

FUny how the Blade is not making min weight and Marcus is asking for the weight to be raised.

Even F16 home builders are asking for the weight to be rasied as they can not make min weight.

At your Global challenge, only 1 boat made min with others at 112 to 120, 130 and 137.

Surely it would be in the claases best interest to set an achievable min weight and with the use of correctors can balance out all boats.

120 kg limit with a 5 kg max lead limit can alow builders to produce boats between 115 and 120, making up the difference to 120 with lead.

What part of boat is on the market is unclear.

I only got into the F18 class for the AUS Worlds. Now for the next project.

Hi Scooby,

I personally am not interested in the 104 class. A 120 kg F16 would be more realistic. Why should people stuggle to make a boat down to weight with most failing to achieve.

Why not propose a 120 min with the use of 5 kg max lead correctors much like the F18 class. Previous built boats can be granfathered to carry a little more lead but new boats must not exceed 5 kg of correctors.

This should be discussed with current and future manufactures, not sailors who are not involved with manufature in any reasonable volume.

Thoughts ??????

When my boat was built had to add weights.

maybe male your F18 a 104.

Geez, all I wanted to know was what the Texel rating for the Viper was for a regatta, and now we are on the 9th page!

Go sailing dudes, oh wait it is winter up north, hehehe. Gorgeous weather in Sing. 12 to 15knots, sunny and hot, and water is warm....

Enjoy JC,

I am flying out to NZ in a few hours to go play Tornadoes for a Month.

Cheers

Stephen

Steve,
I sent you my number as requested.
Happy to discuss your concerns anytime.

Regards,
Phill

Are most boats failing?

I'd suggest most are now close. Mine is close as is all new Stealth F16; Hans Boat was carrying lead to make it measure.

If you want to TRY and change the class rules you need to be an owner and memeber of a NA; then you can propose class rule changes and then if appropiate they get VOTED on.

I like the boat at 104/107.

I'd be very interested in Rolf's view as he is building 3 boats at present. Doe HE think the MIN weight is about right?

I think the min weight is about right. I dont know where our building project is going to end up yet, but that is really not the point in this discussion. Manufacturers are building down to almost min weight, and that is good enough. Building below min weight with ease would mean that the target isn't hard enough to reach.

What we have seen over the couple of last days is a clash of philosophies. The F16 concept was put together by some very smart and experienced sailors. These sailors came together and decided on what boat they would like to sail themself and what was practical in real life. What they came up with was a lightweight boat, but still heavy enough for low tech home construction. They had also felt other issues on their bodies, like unreliable crews, handling on land, righting from a capsize, cost, "arms races", durability etc. All the rules defining the F16 have gone trough many rounds of discussions to be the basis for a good platform. These rules are good rules as proven by the fleet sailing today.
That was the history lesson. What I see Steven and Andrew doing now is something completely different. First off, I would dare to say that 99% of the class is happy with the min weight. I define the "class" as boatowners and builders, no others. I have not asked everybody in the class, but that is the impression I have. So if a very large majority of the class is happy, why change? Well, they way I see it, the only ones really interested in raising the min weight to something like 130Kgs would be manufacturers. Why? Becouse building a 16 foot catamaran at 130Kgs is easy and can be done with unskilled, really cheap labour. Meaning boats can be sold a bit cheaper and margins for the builder can be larger. "Making more money fast" as most spam said in the 90s. I think it is good that manufacturers make a living out of building boats. But I spend my money on what I want, not what the manufacturer wants to sell. It is a simple as that for me.

Now, Marcus and Danny is bringing something else to the table. They are argumenting a slight increase in min weight to make the target min weight achievable. I think changing the rules to accomodate this is the start of a very slippery slope. Having a hard to reach weight is good, giving all manufacturers a goal and not letting them relax in their building procedures.

Another isse has been that the F16 is not "a professional class". Well, what does Andrew and Steven mean by that? I suspect that deep down they think a class is not professional until the big guns like Bundy, Mich and others are active in the class? I can not understand how they can say that other aspects of the class is unprofessional so this is the way I interpret it. Well, I have sailed in the most "professional" class of them all, the Tornado class. I dont see how having professional sailors with manufacturer support in a class does much good for the class. The pros are there to win and make money, while we, the F16 class, really want our events to be about the people and having a good time. We are racing, but it's the social part which makes an event successful. So what if we suck at sailing, as long as everybody sucks equally?

Limiting crew weight? Why would we limit who can race these boats? It is a formula class! If you are very light or very heavy, set up your boat and gear accordingly. I have raced the Tornado at 200Kgs crew weight. With the right sails we were very competitive amongst other weekend warriors.

I dont see how we can get something meaningful out of this discussion, as we dont discuss facts but feelings. I think it is time to end this discussion, and let those class members who feel it is a good idea submit a proposal to the GC for the next rules revision. I also think this discussion as it has been conducted has done more harm than good for the F16 class. Prospective F-16 sailors/people watching this discussion would probably be scared off by what can look like a class where the rules changes every few months. Lets be smart and put the topic of weight to rest while showing the world that our class rules are there for a good reason.

I've written in the other thread that I'm done with this.

Therefor I won't continue here.

I find many claims made to be misleading, unfunded or simply not true.

I also find the discussion pointless from now on asn no official proposal is presented to the F16 GC that can be put up for a vote. Without that the class rules are what they are and class minimum is 107 kg.

Wouter

Rolf Nilsen had said everything that can be said at the end of this discussion and he is damn right in every aspect.

Agreed.

Hey, many thanks to you and Alice for getting me a ride with David on his Blade yesterday. Enjoyed it a lot, even though we had few rig issues that slowed us down a little. Beautiful facility at CSC and interesting to race in a different environment.

No problems Mark. Glad to hear you had a good day. though disappointing you had a few rig issues. But the water would have been a lot warmer than what you are used to. Looked there were a few boats out and about.

Ended up getting to Changi after you guys finished sailing. Had things to do in the morning, and great night out before;). But main thing was that I had a great 2 hrs out burning around. Scared/enthused a few Malaysian Opti sailors when I sailed through their fleet flying hull and screaming along. Wind actually built up to 12 to 15 after your guys finished, just awesome stuff.