Would someone please explain what this NAF20 class is supposed to accomplish?
How can you establish a set of rules when the basic goal has not been established?
What is the "Mission Statement".
How do you know when a rule is "good" when you haven't defined what "good" is?
Who is going to establish, vote on and enforce these rules?

Some people want to allow older to boats to race (cheaply) even with newer boats.
Some people want to allow older to boats to race (expensively) even with newer boats.
Some people want just the newest, fastest boats to race each other.
Some people want to force the factories into building better boats (HA).
Some people want heavy boats with light crews.
Some people want light boats with heavy crews.
Some people want to design a class which fits them perfectly.
Some people want to allow the Tornado to race against narrow boats.
Some people want sponsors and cash prizes.

After 30+ threads and 200+ replies the discussion is still going around in circles. I hope something gets settled soon before everyone gives up.

P.S.
Give up on the NASCAR comparison. They had the crowds long before they had the big money they have now. Not money first and then crowds. The sponsors "discovered" a new demographic and it has snowballed. We are not such a demographic.
Daytona opened in 1959 remember.

Sam

You bring up some very good points. The mission statement is " To provide a basic format/formula where all 20 foot catmarans can compete head to head irreguardless of class, type or manufacture"

The round and round you refer to is the discussion of how we do this. Your two cents worth are valuable and appreciated.

The nascar reference is implied so that people can see that this has been done before and to enable people to crawl out of the manufacturers pocket to see the light of day, so to speak.

At the end of the say we are all catsailors and we need to develope a formula that brings more sailors into our preferred mode of sailing.

Thanks
Steve

Hi Sam

You did a great job at picking out the various trial balloon ideas. As Carl notes... this is a very difficult problem.

The debate is what is the future of 20 foot spin racing boats in the US.

Basically we can let the future happen by doing nothing... or we can attempt to shape and direct the future to cat racing growth.
First issue. Given the Tornado and Inter 20 are the only two boats running chutes around triangles in the US. what are the constraints on the ultimate performance of a 20 foot by 8.5 wide cat. Two or three designers have catagorically stated. the I20 or any other design is way over max on sailpower. The only way to use the sailpower is extra beam. The Tornado will have to be faster in breeze.

So. for a one design class, this is no problem... everyone is in the same boat. but we are trying to get a formula that would include more sailors and also be fair. This is not trivial

In my view the development of an F18 class could help focus the f20's. The F18 class has been organized by the builders. Basically, at crew of 340 lbs you have the highest minimum of any production class AND you have a weight correction scheme for the lightweights who will have to run a smaller chute. The sheet load is a lot less AND the boat is cheaper. ... Hmmm... Its no wonder that the euro f20 scene is much smaller then the very active f18 scene.
What is the future of F18 in the USA.. and its impact on the pool of F20 sailors.?
I really don't know.

John P wrote:
Its simply this in any wind above about 9 knots the speed upwind of the boat is directly proportional to its righting moment, this is why in Eu the f18s quite happily sail to the same speed as the 20s, they are the same width have the same size crews, the boats weigh the same, ergo they have the same righting moment and can only hold up the same amount of power.

If you want these boats to be loads faster than the f18s, you must improve on the ratios of power to drag that they have, the drag factor is weght, the power factors are, length (you already have this one but its not that big), width and sail area, BUT YOU CAN'T increase sail area without increasing beam. (Wouter H and Bill Roberts have said about the same thing)

What should a potential 8.5 Formula 20 do? It is not all together clear.

Should the minimum crew weight be 350 for an I20 based formula class given F18's?
Yeah... I think that is the right niche of participants.

What is the market for such a boat?
Bigger is always better in the USA... i20's should be able to sell that!

Will monohull sailors pick up on a formula boat because they will now fit the boat.
Not sure... They do like a certain amount of comfort... They also like to compete against a big name.

Will I20 sailors ever believe that less sailarea with better shape would be faster overall?
Not until someone shows them how to do it.

Will Randy Smyth’s credo... Sailpower is King forever rule in the USA?
He is one of those designers that we should be consulting with.

How about a different direction?
Should the Old B class rule be dusted off to get the max performance out of 20 feet It spawned the tornado 30 years ago.... Not a bad outcome.. However... these boats will be much wider then 8 and ½ feet.
If there is money on the line.... rigging the boat will not be a problem. But probaly won’t attract the weekend warrior .

Correctly prediciting any of these outcomes would certainly help shape a f20 future in the USA.

I agree with you Sam... it is very very confusing.

I believe that the key to the future is the Marketing plan of the class.
If you were going to market 20 foot cat’s racing in the USA... You would want lots of participation from the Olympic Class racers first. Then you want lots of participation from the serious amatuer racer. You also don’t want to limit the sport to the 325 lb teams. Too many of the potential pool of sailors are way past that weight point. The marketing thrust is competition ... Not the exteme nature of the competion (Worrell 1000)

The sports model that is closer to sailing is Beach Volleyball. Sun sand and skin BUT with Olympic gold on several of the competitors. You can register for a pro beach tournement and compete... just like sailing. Watch the stands on TV.... few of them are ever filled . Sailing can sell if we package it correctly. Selling sailing would mean selling sailing personalities. (Karch Karay in VB and MJ in Basketball) Selling these people who race cats would get more people into the sport and reverse the downward spiral we are on. (just look at the golf craze let by Tiger Woods)

good sailing
Mark Schneider

Mark,

I could kiss you!

You covered everything I have been trying to convey in one post. Would you like a job as a speechwriter?

Thank you
Steve

Hi Sam ,Mark Mike Steve ,-

-It,s funny how the negative context always provokes responce much more than the positive , -it is the same with news t v , bad news and controversy sells , it is why so often dialogue on forums is based in negative ,--the open forum now to a point where it is just as one described it ,-{the trash tabloid of sail forums }-

-Notice the F-18 guys just skipped any forum discussion , -

-This 20 class would similarly be easy to establish if we had the Fox and Inter on the same page -built to the SAME specifications , we would have the main mfg. Co,s and classes in the U S in agreement as the 18s do and dealer /mfg. involvement ,-
WE DO NOT HAVE THIS , -to falsely imply that this is an existing set of conditions that somehow this group that is attempting to form is responcible for is ABSERD -

-PLEASE propose some SOLUTIONS , we know what the problems are , do not repeat lists of them , do not tell us how wonderfull you think 18s or 16s are as several have previously done, do not tell us how wonderfull One design or one class is , we understand all these existing conditions . --If you can't propose a constructive solution then at least state idealy what YOU would like to see .

-If Hobie Europe will bring the Fox to match the Inter 20 --weight 388 ,-390 ---carbon or =mast ,--208 main sail area -we are set , --none of the 200 Inters are going to cut sailarea and add 30 pounds to the boat . -Hobie does not seem to currently be promoting the FOX , --If any have the ability to lobby Hobie to upgrade this boat,--NOW is the time to step forward .
--Why would any want to go slower when F 18s and 16s are already faster in some wind ranges and conditions .
-The iF 20 HAS THE CONCEPTS AND IDEALS CORRECT , -
but they are using an already outmoded heavy rule , as they are already seeing better performing 18s and 16s sail by at higher speeds .

-Rather than building a class on I-20 specs most would rather just build a larger O D class.---it makes better sence under the circumstances handed us.

-Some are leaning towards a limited developement class that could include all existing active 20s in N A AS OPPOSED TO A RACING CLASS EXCLUSIVELY FOR NEW HEAVY FORMULA CATS ONLY .as the only logical alternative , -

-Summed up my current thoughts on the potential future of the F-20 N A Class ,--under min weight , the last post currently .-More information creative ideas ,new concepts proposed and discussion is needed , -
Hopefully some good positive things will derive from it .

Carl
-

-follow-up
sorry Sam ,-no offence intended ,

We are not responcible for existing conditions ,

The arguement for a -20 Class in N A may be best exemplified by these deteriorating set of conditions , -Our goal is to promote the sport , make it more readily accessable , inclusive ,and enjoyable for ourselves and future generaltions of cat sailors . -

-this may address the topic question in more detail , posted 3 weeks ago.
proposed 20 class rule options

-Equal Performance 20 Class EP20-C

-Goal –
-To promote equal Formula type catamaran racing in respect with F-16 HT and F-18 class racing in N A –including all the numerous existing 20 ft ---= beam cat designs in their various design configurations
-and also to work with and include existing F-20 designs and to promote and encourage new designs, participation in the class and general growth of the sport.

1--problem –We have numerous existing 20 ft active racing catamarans, some in several versions, some with variations of sail area and weight from advertised specifications.
Also we have existing 20 Formula designs, further we would like to encourage and promote new developments in design, sail plans, building technique, and boat performance.

-Solution =Draft a more inclusive flexible set of class rules.


-2—Problem –variations of sail area and weight of listed existing designs.

-Solution = Allow a limited graduated scale within the proposed class rules of sail area to boat weight ratios.

-Discussion –We can set a max. rating target in ISAF and–Texel beyond the existing F-20 rating, -possibly several points faster, this will allow existing boats to sail as they are and upgrade slightly themselves if desired, allow proportional equal performance upgrades in sail area or reduced weight to existing designs, -Existing F-20 s could be upgraded for N A . with larger chutes, or built with lighter components ,-carbon mast etc., New designs evolving have the option of lighter total weight ,- again equalizing all designs within the weight to sail area scale outline.

Further –We should rely on proven existing ratings calc and design principles in establishing the weight to sail area scale ratios setting proportional max. main jib and spin area limitations in conference and per recommendations of established cat designers. -A suggested weight range may graduate with proportionally reduced sail area from 420 to 320 lbs.
-{note ; working on sail area to weight ratios } . researching existing designs for comparison . Will propose a base ratio on existing designs we with to include.

-Problems –As listed previously this type of design rule historically leads to 3 main undesirable class characteristics evolving over time .
1-extreme design characteristics {rulebeater designs} -2- cost and expense of these designs –
3 –fragile lightweight designs.

-1-Solution –Given existing cat design in respect to other established 16 and 18 Formula Classes setting a max 20 ft Length and 8.5 beam, with sail area and weight being the other main factors in design performance, If we are going to guide or direct future catamaran design by the formation of class racing rules then lets direct them toward lighter faster safer designs which would occur with lighter platforms with less sail area on them, being easier to control particularly in heavy weather and large sea conditions with less strain and wear on stay and beam connections, also being easier to right in event of a capsize.

-Solution 2—cost –presently per example of numerous excellent A Class and other lightweight durable designs and in larger scale the Boyer Taipan 5.7 for one, with it’s 18.75 ft length has a weight of 275 lbs and is very reasonably and competitively priced. The 320 lower end proposed target weight range for the 20 class would not be unrealistic consistent with cost and strength.

-Solution 3—fragile or unseaworthy designs --- The 20 Class will often be used in ocean distance races, any cat produced or built should be capable of completing a Worrell 1000 race.
-Min scantling requirements –{min specified strengths of components} may be drafted,
-The class may also reserve the right to require min testing certification per manufacturer.

-
Problem –Crew weight –
-Solution –The F-16 and 18 classes will attract proportionally sized crews with their smaller more manageable chute sizes. Most racing 20s have experienced larger crew being very competitive on the larger more powerful cats and are used to class min weights we now all sail under, The class may wish to set a min 325 per most existing class rules and allow those below to carry weight to meet min. We all have the option of crew and total weight and can be responsible to maintain our own ideal optimum.

-A total boat and crew weight rule may also be proposed , -but the addition of adjustable racks or wings would be required , and this rule requires added difficulty of measurement and verification in the total formula and future proposed rules that would also have to be addressed if used.


-There are numerous other class rules to discuss and define, -these main proposed concepts outlined would form the basis of the new 20 class.

Please post your constructive optional solutions, or expanded thoughts on existing rules outline concepts --thanks
Carl Roberts

-Also previously posted

-As we already read in another post by Marc mhb -new 20 boats are already being designed and built, they will continue to be built each year in larger numbers, new development, better lighter faster safer more seaworthy boats will continue to be developed. No matter how much any individual would like everything to stay the same, the only certain thing is change.

-We need to realize this reality, again the main reason the 1967 Tornado is still around, it has been allowed to develop, be built lighter, and modify over time, beyond the original B Class rule it was originally designed to in 1967, -if this had not occurred it would have vanished just as so many others have .We need to allow a class that becomes a part of this, and that encourages innovation and design excellence, allows all existing 20 s to race, along with FAIR SAILING for all.

-The other point you mention -{we can always race Portsmouth} ------It is very unfortunate that the powers that be in the U S, decided not to adopt ISAF rating for small cats but because several placed time to try to repair the fundamental inaccuracies of Porthmouth {an finish numbers } by adding numerous design measurement modification factors to it rather than a total rework, choose an inaccurate method of averages that placates sailors as opposed to providing accurate mathematically correct systematic design measurement based on proven design formula ratings . -

-Our task would be much easier, the U S will eventually catch up with the rest of the cat sailing world in this area and change to ISAF ratings for cats as we all become more familiar with A Class and Formula concepts and ideals.

-The 20 Class, --- We all bring our own human bias to the discussion, ---If your a boat dealer you want rules favoring your brand of cat, -{watch the N A 18 rules struggle} --If your Hobie cat oriented You want Hobie first, --if you sail an Inter 20, you want all rules written to match the mast and sail area. ---If you sail a N -6/0 you want a larger chute, thus faster than the I-20, --If your a big heavy sailor you want only 350 pound crews allowed, --If your small you want light weight allowances 270 min. --If your a Euro F-sailor you want the F rules strictly enforced , -If you own a Fox, -the same , --If a Hobie 20 you want mast compensation and weight rule and length allowances, --If a P 19, the same, -if you sail a Tornado you want a 10 ft beam, -on and on, we all bring em all to the discussion ,-we all are competitive ,-But , what is really best for ALL -?

We need to agree on our mission, What are our IDEALS and GOALS -

PROPOSE IT IS FIRST AND FORMOST EQUAL FAIR SAILING FOR ALL, --not any of the above exclusively, but INCLUSIVELY FOR ALL,
If we can all agree on that then proposals that do not meet the basic IDEAL are rejected for that overriding principle.

Please read rule #2 in your ISAF rules book if your in doubt !!

-also previously posted -
proposed is a combination Formula box -and developement rule , with sail area and boat weight ratio scale being allowed to develope .
-Proposed preliminary sail area to boat weight ratio scale for the 20 class -

max, Weight -420 --main 220 --jib --60 --spin 330 sq ft

-mid range -Weight 370 --main 200 --jib 55 --spin 300

-min Weight 320 --main 180 jib 50 --spin 270

-note; shown are max,-mid and min. --all would be calculated based on individual boat weight and fall within this range .

--As you can see we are proposing an increase of sail area of the existing N-6/0 for example at max 420 lbs. from exs. 264 to 280 max , main and jib ,--including mast area .
-Max. spin area would be 330 sq ft . with a percentage allowance in increased spin area for alum , and heavier masts with added stays or the heavier comptip of several existing designs wishing to keep them rather than modify .

-Stay hound tang mast locations and max height can be standardized along with max spin pole L .

-All designs would also be allowed to shift sail area from main to jib in total equal sq ft per weight catagory,allowing some flexability in design . As another example In the mid range weight the 8.5 beam version Tornado at 370 +or - could use its existing sailplan main and 75 sq ft jib with larger allowed spin if desired.
--At the min weight end we are encouraging approx 100 lb lighter designs than existing F-20s with slightly smaller main and jib with equal spin area in respect to current boats.

Here is the prop. Weight to Sail Area rule scale applied to the various designs listed .-Keep in mind that mainsail area from max may be transfered to the jib area maintaining the total equally to allow design variation, and that a spin area increase { 2 to 6 % }will be added to heavier masted existing designs.
-Note : max spin area may not always prove fastest , we may find a certain aspect ratio spin performs best through a range of conditions given the same hoist height on the mast and spin pole length.

-note; varied Weight slightly for example purposes ,-as we know mfg. advertised W will vary , each will be weighed.

--N-6/0 --W=420 - - M-Sail 220 - - Jib 60 -- - Spin max=330 + % factor of mast -applied based on mast weight,all designs
-note ; all existing N-6/0 s could race as they are including the East coast fleet with it,s 348 spin under the mast allowance rule .-6/0s wishing to modify to max sail area over time as listed have that option.

-Tornado sp -8,5 Beam --W-370 -MS =200- Jib 55 - - Spin 300
-note T-could race using it's existing sail plan with larger spin if desired or upgrade its sailplan configuration as listed.

-Inter 20 -W=390 - - MS =208 - - Jib 57 - - Spin max,-312
Inters could use their existing sailplan and upgrade their spin. size if desired.

-H-Fox -W-415 + MS =218 -Jib 59.5 - Spin max -327
-plus % for heavier mast if used ,
note; Fox could sail as is or upgrade to max sail area in any combination.

-Mystere W=400 - - MS =212 - Jib -58 - - Spin max=318
may sail with exs. rig or modify to max.

-H-20 -W=420 - - MS 220 - Jib 60 - - Spin max 330
plus % for heavier mast if used.
; may use exs.rig or upgrade to max.

-P-19 -W=385 - MS 206 - Jib-56.5 - - Spin max. 309
would be competitive with existing rig and upgraded spin.

-Light -W=320 -MS -180 - Jib -50 - - Spin max. 270

Do not believe this option is presented in the previous polling post.

-Can some offer specifics of the negatives and positives of this proposed rule .
thanks -

-new F-18 N A web site has been up a few days -- http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/naf_18/

The socialogical aspects as Mark S brought up , potential sponsors and racing as majsteve knows are there potentially for us , ALL THE ENTHUSIASTIC RACING SAILORS AND EXCELLENT BOAT BUILDERS , ---and THEN the opposition,--the terrible confused existing set of conditions we are attempting to address , combined with mfg. Class division that continues , along with the general decline of the sport , dead boat classes ,-open racing alternatives . –How do we revive the sport and encourage a new active racing 20 class to emerge in respect to existing cat designs and newly formed Formula 18 and 16 Classes in N A .

-Should we attempt to lobby Hobie Europe to meet Inter –20 specifications to equalize their actual speeds and set up a similar set of rules , basically a Formula Class for larger people , --what percentage of sailors are left for this class .
-This would be simple to set up , if H were to agree , but is it needed or wanted , Total performance and ratings indicate that the 16 and 18 classes will actually be faster within a wind range and given set of conditions. I have already found this to be true on the race course.

-Should we attempt to address these problems as well and go the direction of a developemental class to solve these problems allowing a jump in total performance to the 20 class requireing more sail area , more beam , and less weight be allowed to develop within a class rules structure .
-It may be one logical way to proceed

In attempting to establish a weight to sail area average performance scale we have several factors that are not calculated exactly in ISAF -TEXEL OR that need exact definition, -rating systems rate all boats to an av crew weight and av conditions through a much broader range ,--we only need to compare and attempt to rate 20 ft. class cats equally using the two other main variables of weight and sail area.
--The ISAF uses a standard assumed crew weight, and believe Texel uses 75kg av. on all ratings. We of course actually have various crew weights, mostly larger on the 20s.
-We have wind strength variables {beaufort scale} and the effects of righting moment which varies in each wind category, and crew weight, from it being a non factor in below 6 to 8 mph winds, except in relation to sail area to drag --{light air sailing}-

We have the various effects on total performance of the sail areas separately of main -jib -and spin through the ratio.

-We have L AND B as a set standard for the 20 class –should we reconsider total beam and allow wider cats like the Tornado in the class ,-or go beyond and allow racks to be added to increase total performance r
How to formulate an accurate fair weight to sail area scale that factors or ideally requires larger crew weight, wind strength, righting moment, with defined sail areas and their effects individually in relation to weight and total performance factors through this range.

-There are performance ratings of ISAF and Texel, --there are more precised individual boat performance prediction programs used by designers, but none describe in exact terms an average number applied to relate sail area to weight as described above, such a number is at best an estimate or average, -inaccurate at the extremes of design or wind strength parameters.
There are no existing classes or historically that have a rating based on sail area to weight only that can be applied to cats. -We have a Portsmouth system of rating providing average performance of existing cats that may give us insight, and the basic experiences of racing numerous similar cats in open competition.
We have specifications of existing cats that we wish to include as a basic guideline.

-ISAF ratings indicate existing heavier cats with proportionately larger sail plans than newer lightweight cats with smaller sail plans currently as proposed rate faster indicating a bias towards the older heavier cats within the scale, and should be refined to some extent. --Again ISAF does not include heavier crew weight or it's added righting moment. -I believe individual boat performance predictions through the range of wind strengths would show a performance curve overlapping between light and heavy air sailing, favoring the lighter cat designs with smaller sail areas and equal crew righting moment as the wind increased, -contrary in this upper wind range to ratings.
Additionally options of furling jibs are reefing mainsails are within existing rules instantly changing all rating equations and rating numbers .-Many other intangables also come into play when racing –actual conditions , waves current and effects, -and all the human elements of racing.
--Should we attempt to propose a 20 ft –larger beam with added racks -weight to sail area racing class, when no one else has, what are the benefits.

-A large existing number of potential active racing 20s that according to ratings would be and remain very competitive for many years, unlike the new Formula classes that seem to be comprised of only new 418 LB iF boats. -
All existing 8.5 B 20s can race as they are or modify as they choose.
A younger sailor could refinish any existing 20 or 20 platform at reasonable cost and race this class. -
-New development can occur within the class allowing new lightweight designs and innovation, geared towards less but more efficient sail areas in relation to existing but modified cats, and lighter safer faster sailing cat designs.

-Can existing iF CLASS racing fall within this weight to sail area formula as they are proposed, yes -
Could this weight to sail area be applied to other length categories and keep existing if class racing within, -yes.
Could this concept be applied to all spin length categories if found preferable by the majority of racing sailors ---yes -
Could these 3 length spin classes 16 18 and 20 easily relate to each other and race together,-- yes. –

-We can formulate a sail area to weight ratio rule , we have a niche in the Formula classes for heavier crews , required for the added moment needed on these larger sail area more powerfull cats .
Should larger beam cats be allowed , then coresponding racks be allowed ?

Currently this is as far as thinking takes me , certainly do not have all the answers ,-

Carl

Marc -your currently building 20s and have optional racks ,-
can you provide costs , attachment , basic design , and performance increase est .
Many of us have sailed H-21S OR 17S with wings ,--the mystere has racks available , what else is currently available .

-Also -a history and discussion of developement type classes may be welcomed .
A-Class --18 Squares ,--B Class ,---French 60 ft tris --C-Class ,-etc .
THANKS

Hi Carl
The broad goal of this effort is clear. Perhaps we need to narrow the focus and see what kind of consensus emerges AND see who is left out by such a path.

I will start with an 8.5 x 20 foot boat at approx 390 lbs does not need any more sail area then an I20. Where are we then on the level playing field... 2001 Texel ratings ae very close.


2001 Texel rule Mystere 6.o Xl and Nacra 6.0 + 4 point spin hit = 95 (4 point hit is the 2002 spin hit)

Euro I20 = 97
Tornado = 96
US I20... probalby a 96 on texel
So... the math claims that these boats are all about equal on the race course. We should declare victory... rename all 20 foot spin triangle starts as formula 20 and go race.

Since the designers and experience tell us that all of these boats are "overpowered" we Could eliminate the minimum weight as an issue (the Optimum weight will be determined on the water) You can impose a strict windseed minimum and maximum for racing

Having set up the solution let me critique it. The majority of the critisim is based on the perception of the market. This perception does not have to be accurate.

No one believes that the Tornado can loose in breeze given its beam.

Everyone believes that their are differences in hull shape that are more or less advantaged at different wind speeds. The Portsmouth windspeed adjustments try to correct this limitation of texel. (some beieve this is valid... others like yourself HATE IT) All rigs/sail plans are not developed equally. Compare the tornado's constant evolution of the rig with the static nature of a manufacturers one design class rig.

Weight matters to all sailors the competitive weight band for most boats is 20 to 30 lbs centered around the optimum. How do you increase this band? Sail power controls the speed. The one unique advantage of formula over a one design is the ability to weight correct with sail area. This adds complexity and makes marketing to sponsors very difficult.

Texel, ISAF and Portsmouth are not the same as Formula rules. Formula lives or dies on the observation that all the boats really are the same speed. If one boat is really faster... the formula class will die. In a true formulae class the builders will market quality of build... price, availability, dealer support, one design racing opportunities. etc etc This is the problem with creating a formula class with our historical boats. We just don't believe the texel rating and the I20 is the dominant boat followed by the 6.0 and Hobie 20 (spin equipped racing)

Mind you, Performance is hoping that their F18 is a Tiger and I18 killer because they will sell more boats. Hobie will counter if the F18 seems to have an edge. (Nacra 6.0's won out over the Mystere 6.0 based on the Worrell 1000. The dominant boat was the nacra... the Dart Hawk, Hobie 20 and Mystere's were not well represented numbers wise and had issues on the race course. While this one result does not prove anything... in the marketplace it sure spoke volumes.

One Solution to the perception problem ... test the boats in speed trials. Replicate the Sailing world trial of several years ago with pro sailors except that you are trying to measure the boats performance and use it to assess just how acurate the Texel, Isaf or Portsmouth rating actual is... If they are close enough.... we declare victory and go racing.

Or we can poll the pro sailors in Europe who don't have current factory ties. Perhaps they can pass judgement on .. are all these boats even on the race course.

What is left out is Development classes.

The dominiatar (I have no idea what this is)
the M18 and the M20(have seen this one) and Mystere 2000. have texel numbers below the f20 range. These are autoclaved all carbon boats. They are going to race in open class untill the marketplace accepts them (or the Olympics picks one of them) I would let these guys race wtih F20 and score them on your rating system of choice and then score your formula 20 and finally score any one design fleet and lastly... score A and B fleets. TROPHIES ARE CHEAP!

Well I am certainly not married to this proposal I will ask how does this trial ballon fly?
Mark

Mark,

Great plan!!!! Our old fleet moto - Shut up and sail

If you look at the calculations and aruments posted over the last couple of months we are aruing over 1-2%. You will blow way more than that in a race by missing a shift, over standing a lay line, yata, yata, yata.

There is a lack of participation in this sport. Using the excuse of weight to divide the fleets into 16, 18 etc is counter productive. My wish is to sail whatever boat has the largest start.

The continuing attempts to micromanage the formula/rules to level what is not level will just continue to provide arguments, and this class will never get off the ground.

Thanks

Matt

Hi Matt -
agree ,-the race what ya got attitude , just let em adjust the what the way they want . -
-arguements can be logically resolved and rules of the game established without too much problem , we have just been handed a difficult situation , and need a little more info .

-Hi Mark

Your on the right track, but unless we establish basic box parameters L B W and Sail AR, or equalizing scales with allowed equalizing performance factors and modifications, this will never be fair sailing, or perceived as such, What you are proposing is open ratings and calling it a class.

Do not hate anything, the best aspect of P. rating is the wind factor, {beaufort scale,

The ideal rating system would be ISAF –Texel , add the wind range factor, and add a percentage factor to rating #s based on Portsmouth as a correcting factor.
Colin {Sailwave scoring } has it set up to score races in all 3 systems, as they are more accurately ,honestly compared ,-maybe we will see this evolve. One rating rule, --a new world order, so to speak, -{joking }—All rating systems are an average estimate, and not an accurate design performance prediction of every boat , the formula would become extremely long complex and require exact almost infinite variables dependent upon wind strength and wave conditions.

-Posted weight and beam effects by Bill R –previously, -he sites the Olympic boat trials where the Tornado wins each race with its larger beam in higher wind range conditions. –this has effectively been established.

-Racks would be the only way to include 10 ft beam boats, but this may be the perfect answer for a large increase in boat performance, -beyond 16 and 18s, -would match the proposed increase in sail area to each boat, quick estimate of an added 800+ lbs of righting moment countering the thrust of sails, be compensated in any small added weight with proportional increased sail area per prop.rules, and look really great for the sponsors, -similar to popular racing skiffs. We need cost ,weight and attachment info , maybe better designs for them .-Would also revise the proposed sail area up slightly with the added factor

-Estimate racks of 2.5 ft to equalize an 8.5 b to 10 ft b design , --allowing added rack L for inboard hull weight , higher windage wing and crew , measured from leeward hull to average crew position.
The added 812.5-ft Lbs of righting moment for the average 325 LB crew is a huge boost in high wind performance, now needed on these large powerful cats.

Taking a peak into one possible future scenario of this classes evolution, --{the famous unforeseen consequences} so many talk about, --

Can envision with these new proposed more powerful cats with lightweight design and righting moment much higher top speeds.
Sailing the I-20 with its wider bow sections many have experienced a planning effect, where the boat seems to start skidding across the top. –New designs with more horsepower may realize that by adding more hull angle, beyond 6 or 8 degrees and adding slightly flatter bow hull sections with larger chutes at higher luff angles that these cats will plane, -just as sliffs do.

-We will see a huge jump in performance levels if this evolves from the 20 class,
We would then definitely have to set a modified and development class category, just as As do.
This is the wonderful aspect, draw, and interest of a more open type class.
Wouldn’t this be fun to be a part of?

All the best
Carl
-


-

Mark said organise a race to see actual performance, but you can also proces and look at race result whith large turnouts. Last means that each class has a few top dog sailors getting the max out of the boat.

These results are from Ronde tiengemeente (Corrected) of okt 2001.

A tornado has finished simultaniously with a F20 when the tornados corrected time is about 2 min 8 secs slower.

Abviously the tornado sport and F20 finished among eachother with any strong favour for either

But first the real tornado sports (all other in the main list are Classic tornado's)

Source www.hellecat.nl

Ronde Tiengemeten 2001 Tornado

Nr. Stuurman Fokkemaat Zeilnr. Zeiltijd Resultaat

1 Karsenbarg, Sven Heemskerk, Mischa 111 03:06:27 03:14:13
2 Moret, John Radelaar, Danny 148 03:14:25 03:22:31
3 Haas de, Eric Kuiper, M. 1431 03:15:42 03:23:51
4 Klaassen, Hans Smit, Marco 1301 03:17:10 03:25:23
5 Ruiters, Merijn Ruiters, Mirjam 154 03:20:24 03:28:45
6 Pols, Xander Faas, Leoniek 159 03:25:36 03:34:10
7 Wieren v, Ruurd-Jouk Dekker, Michel 142 03:29:54 03:38:39
8 Hermsen, Hans Smit, Marco 157 03:34:22 03:43:18
9 Veenman, Nico Munck de, Rene 153 03:46:59 03:56:26
10 Diks, Marcel Beest van, John 149 00:00:00 DSQ


***************************MAIN finishing list **********************

Ronde Tiengemeten 2001 Open klasse (Handicap<110)

Nr. Stuurman Fokkemaat Zeilnr. Boottype Resultaat

1 Karsenbarg, Sven Heemskerk, Mischa 111 Tornado 03:14:13
2 Bouscholte, Hans Desmedt, Peter 221 F 20 ongemeten 03:14:48
3 Colby, Gavin Voiron, Lolo 107 F 20 ongemeten 03:17:19
4 Huntelman, Vincent Harskamp van, Igor 032 F 20 ongemeten 03:20:24
5 Empel van, Erik 64 A-Cat 97 03:20:58
6 Monteny, Marcel Smeets, Joost 295 F 20 ongemeten 03:21:16
7 Moret, John Radelaar, Danny 148 Tornado 03:22:31
8 Brouwer, Paul Knol, Caroline 69 F 18 gemeten 03:22:38
9 Loos, Gerard Zeggeren van,Esther 917 F 18 gemeten 03:22:46
10 Vries de, J.T. Alessie, D. 21 F 20 ongemeten 03:22:56
11 Haas de, Eric Kuiper, M. 1431 Tornado 03:23:51
12 Meert, Eric Schell, Peter 7 F 18 gemeten 03:24:27
13 Loon van, Bas Damoisseaux, Runar 141 F 20 ongemeten 03:24:37
14 Larsen, Sascha Boer, B. de 75X F 20 ongemeten 03:24:39
15 Klaassen, Hans Smit, Marco 1301 Tornado 03:25:23
16 Smit, Arthur Jong, Erik de 11 F 18 gemeten 03:25:30
17 Kimmel, Joost Koster, Klaas 323 F 20 ongemeten 03:25:45
18 Steemeijer, Herman Poel v.d., Wampe 413 F 18 gemeten 03:25:45
19 Blom, Jan-Willem Pater de, Peter 198 F 20 ongemeten 03:25:54
20 Plas van der, Arie Maaden v.d.,Guido 5X F 20 ongemeten 03:26:44
21 Vogel, Joop Vogel, Lien 572 F 18 ongemeten 03:26:52
22 Nes van, Hans Fris, Jolanda 400 F 18 gemeten 03:27:38
23 Demesmaeker, Brouwere 704 F 18 ongemeten 03:28:03
Patrick de,Frederic
24 Ruiters, Merijn Ruiters, Mirjam 154 Tornado 03:28:45
25 Boer de, Willem Held de, Robert 298 F 20 ongemeten 03:28:56
26 Mol, Maarten Bloemsma, Peter 747 F 20 ongemeten 03:30:43
27 Hollander den, Leen Mulder, Sander 2X F 20 ongemeten 03:31:17
28 Klootwijk, Rob Vos de , Rene 306 F 20 ongemeten 03:31:26
29 Plas v.d.Arie jr. Pool, Eddy 8 F 18 gemeten 03:31:45
30 Breur, Hans Buyse, Paul 296 F 20 ongemeten 03:31:51
31 Meulen Hin, Frans 839 F 18 gemeten 03:31:53
v.d.ReindertJ
32 Nagtzaam, Wim Ouwehand, Alice 756 F 18 gemeten 03:32:04
33 Zwitser, Dirk Leeuwen van, Jeroen 95 F 20 ongemeten 03:32:21
34 Boers, Eelco Blokzijl, Jurjen 034 F 20 ongemeten 03:32:22
35 Ouwehand, Bram Ouwehand,Hans 308 F 20 ongemeten 03:32:55
36 Straakenbroek, Jaap Braber den, Besman 11111 F 20 ongemeten 03:33:18
37 Brouwer, Albert Dun, Martijn van 246 F 20 ongemeten 03:33:26
38 Tobias,Marieke Bogaards, Diana 591 F 18 gemeten 03:33:28
dames
39 Geijssen, Willem Welleman, Michel 691 F 20 ongemeten 03:33:30
40 Philippron,Jean-Cla Nelissen, Luc 278 F 20 ongemeten 03:33:54
u
41 Hofman, Arien Zuijderwijk, John 10 F 20 ongemeten 03:34:00
42 Bokma, Karel Reisenbach, Garmt 261 F 20 ongemeten 03:34:06
43 Pols, Xander Faas, Leoniek 159 Tornado 03:34:10
44 Nieuwenhuis, Dick Geuze, Mark 293 F 20 ongemeten 03:34:14
45 Salverius, Cor Teunissen, Fred 128 F 20 ongemeten 03:34:35
46 Franken, Henri 801 A-Cat 97 03:35:24
47 Cichocki, Piotr Bouscholte, Ronald 312 F 20 ongemeten 03:36:01
48 Dam van, Coert Dam van, Marius 0 F 18 gemeten 03:36:07
49 Visser, Jan Visser, Stuart 883 F 18 gemeten 03:36:21
50 Wouda, Jurjen Wouda, Jouke 172 F 18 gemeten 03:36:32
51 Boer de, Sander Rijs van, Bart 604 F 18 gemeten 03:36:44
52 Pool, Dirk 56 Hobie FX one spi 03:36:54
53 Lub, Ron Lub, Remco 641 F 18 ongemeten 03:37:07
54 Weiblen, Dirk 502 A-Cat Spi 03:37:10
55 Bouwman, Pieter Visser, Hans 091 F 20 ongemeten 03:37:37
56 Hirschmann, Ronald Vos, Lauw 139 F 20 ongemeten 03:37:45
57 Durinck, Edwin Heuvel v.d., Dick 8888 F 18 ongemeten 03:38:33 58 Wieren v, Dekker, Michel 142 Tornado 03:38:39
Ruurd-Jouk
59 Buse, Paul Buse, Willemien 291 F 20 ongemeten 03:39:19
60 Hengst Hengst 167 F 20 ongemeten 03:39:21
61 Lunen van, Jeroen Vrijburg, Sjoerd 018 F 20 ongemeten 03:39:28
62 Dekien, Stef Tanghe, Boudewijn 212 F 20 ongemeten 03:39:46
63 Smit, Steven Rhyn, Harry van 208 F 20 ongemeten 03:40:11
64 Hilbrands, Martin Kwast, Michiel vd 037 F 20 ongemeten 03:40:20
65 Giethoorn, Ronald Kwast van der, Phil 130 F 20 ongemeten 03:40:37
66 Kerstens, J. Muiderman, W. 132 Tornado classic 03:40:43
67 Jongen, George 798 A-Cat 97 03:41:06
68 Schrijver, R. Schrijver-BrouwerS. 652 F 18 ongemeten 03:41:19
J
69 Krijger, Kees Hekken v., Rene 536 F 18 ongemeten 03:41:20
70 Griffioen, Arie Griffioen, Louis 123 F 20 ongemeten 03:41:22
71 Vanhaverbeke, Bart Verhaghe, Hans 764 F 18 ongemeten 03:41:35
72 Ruesink, Geert Haas v.d.,Raymond 186 Taipan 4.9 (spi) 03:41:51
73 Binnekamp, Dirk Vliet van, Peter 607 F 18 gemeten 03:42:33
74 Feldmann, Uwe Gretencord, Klaus 927 Nacra 570 03:42:33
75 Vercruyssen, Erwin Verstraeten, Wim 311 F 20 ongemeten 03:42:54
76 Haan de, Remko Vliet van der, Pim 190 F 20 ongemeten 03:42:54
77 Hermsen, Hans Smit, Marco 157 Tornado 03:43:18
78 Fontaine,Patrick Verlinde, Jan 188 F 18 ongemeten 03:44:07
79 Lebrun, Vincent Bernier, Joe 263 F 18 gemeten 03:44:11
80 Berghorst, Jan Uit den 1X F 20 ongemeten 03:44:48
Bosch,Marinu
81 Verbrugh, Jerphaas Verbrugh, Erica 230 F 20 ongemeten 03:44:56
82 Born, Jan-Peter Velde te, Arend 699 F 18 ongemeten 03:45:06
83 Herssens, Marc Herssens, Michele 285 F 18 gemeten 03:45:12
84 Halleux de, Simpelaere, Benoit 20 F 18 gemeten 03:45:45
Philippe
85 Remeijer, Remco Slot van 764 F 18 gemeten 03:45:46
't,Marielle
86 Veenstra, Sjaak Spijker, Martin 138X F 20 ongemeten 03:45:57
87 Cok, Eric Tesselhoff, Fanni 1 F 18 gemeten 03:46:38
88 Breemans, Manuelle Vaesen, Danny 112 F 18 gemeten 03:46:55
89 Peel, Stan Goris, Philip 562 F 18 ongemeten 03:46:58
90 Gils van, Wilco Gils,Noort v., Iris 636 Nacra 5.5 Sloop 03:47:21
91 Butz, Geert 17 A-Cat 97 03:47:45
92 Kant, Robbert Schipper, Daaf 151 F 20 ongemeten 03:47:58
93 Kloppers, Ruigrok, 732 F 18 gemeten 03:48:19
94 Emeis, Henk Bruijne de, Rens 232 F 20 ongemeten 03:48:28
95 Kersseboom, Danny Zon van, Erik 1270 Hobie 18 Formula 03:49:05
96 Heemskerk,Piet Hoogendijk, Antje 22 Dominator spi 03:49:20
97 Lampier, E.H. 10X Nacra 18-2 03:49:26
98 Streep, K. Thamer 505 Nacra inter18 03:49:43
99 Nijgh, Pieter Schie van, Anton 143 F 20 ongemeten 03:49:50
100 Wolters, Henk 84 Nacra Inter 17 03:50:21
101 Kruijff, Raymon Korzaan, Renske 627 F 18 gemeten 03:50:37
102 Vercouteren, Menno Haas de, Jolande 442 F 18 ongemeten 03:50:52
103 Kerstholt, Cas Berg v.d.,Edgar 422 F 18 ongemeten 03:50:56
104 Ambtman, Leo Veenstra, Tjiddo 1381 Tornado classic 03:51:18
105 Wienke, Ernst Wienke, Heleen 968 Hobie 18 Formula 03:51:38
106 Careel, Daniel Carbonez, Pascal 29 F 18 gemeten 03:51:39
107 Romme, Johan Beelen van, 655 F 18 ongemeten 03:52:14
Caroline
108 Zalm van der, Dirk Somers, Jan 641X F 18 ongemeten 03:52:16
109 Koster, J.J.A. Hovenkamp, Egbert 178 F 20 ongemeten 03:52:40
110 Berg van den, Hans 81 A-Cat 97 03:53:01
111 Weber,Doris damest. Bohrer, Irmgard 092 F 18 ongemeten 03:53:17
112 Overveld, Wim Ruiter de, Krijn 626 F 18 ongemeten 03:53:35
113 Boheemen, P.L.M. 110 A-Cat 97 03:53:55
114 Deelman, Jaxon Gase, Robin 157X F 20 ongemeten 03:53:58
115 Tuinman, Annelies Tuinman, Johan 121 F 18 ongemeten 03:54:02
116 Allaart, Bernard Hoofdman, Hilde 673 F 18 ongemeten 03:55:21
117 Verbrugh, Robert Bakelaar, Teunis 962 Nacra 570 03:55:28118 Steens, Scott Brandt, Manon 560 F 18 ongemeten 03:55:46
119 Wijk van, Thies Wijk van, David 568 F 18 gemeten 03:55:53
120 Jong de, Nico Zuurmond, Rob 189 F 20 ongemeten 03:56:02
121 Fluit, Rene Boer den, Annemarie 5621 Nacra 5.5 Raid 03:56:23
122 Veenman, Nico Munck de, Rene 153 Tornado 03:56:26
123 Dam van, Boris Roling, Heleen 758 F 18 gemeten 03:56:29
124 Timmermans, Michael Nieuwveen, Ramon 682 F 18 ongemeten 03:56:41
125 Koster, Koos Besselink, Michael 1787 Topcat K1 big 03:57:26
126 Kempen, Cees van Drongelen, Bert van 60 F 18 ongemeten 03:57:54
127 Cieremans, Joop Dittner, Jeroen 133 Tornado classic 03:58:01
128 Vermolen, Ronald Molenaar, Peter 131 Tornado classic 03:58:16
129 Wit de,Gradus Gelens, Cees 1999 Prindle 19 03:58:42
130 Jansen, Frans Rijn van, Ben 206 F 20 ongemeten 03:59:08
131 Harms, Rob Walrave, Albert 2000 F 20 ongemeten 03:59:20
132 Dijk v.,Jan Dijk v.,Koen 389 Prindle 18-2 03:59:59
133 Diependaal, Martin Jas, Jos 093 F 20 ongemeten 04:00:13
134 Nobel, Bas Kleijweg, Rikko 667 Nacra 5.7 04:00:53
135 Hiemstra,Jelle Kapsenberg, Roeland 127 Prindle 18-2 04:01:41
Geert
136 Spaas, Rolph Biewenga, Tjasse 288 Nacra 6.0 04:01:44
137 Bouten, Kris Goris, Katrien 75 Mattia 18 spi 04:02:07
138 Grunwald,Mirjamdame Verbeeten, Josje 341 Prindle 18-2 04:02:29
s
139 Deltour, Jan Dessoy, Katryn 527 F 18 ongemeten 04:02:33
140 Lussenburg, Patrick Kleij, Marcel 356 Nacra 6.0 Raid 04:03:04
141 Plantinga, Elles Berger, Peter 15283 Hobie 18 04:04:40
142 Wiersema, Kees Vos, Peter-Jan 504 F 18 gemeten 04:05:30
143 Lemmens, Carol Budde, Jerome 506 Prindle 18-2 04:06:00
144 Ouwehand, Huud Ouwehand, Leen 3 Nacra 5.5 Sloop 04:06:23
145 Kleijn, Cees Grinwis, Teun 10801 Hobie 18 04:06:42
146 Spaay, Ron Corvers, John 233 F 20 ongemeten 04:06:49
147 Reus de, Gijs Helders, Pauline 514 Dart 20 04:07:24
148 Gier de, C. Peter 15287 Hobie 18 04:07:34
149 Schrama, Jan Schrama, Arnoud 410 Hurricane 5.9 04:07:43
150 Schaaper, Martijn Schaaper, Floris 129 Nacra 6.0 04:07:46
151 Pauw de, Iwan Tanghe, Bart 329X Nacra 6.0 Raid 04:08:36
152 Vollmann, Peter Sowinski, Jakub 526 Prindle 19 spi 04:08:59
153 Meer van der, Groot de, Boris 339 Nacra 6.0 04:10:18
Pieter
154 Vlijmen van, J.A.R. Heuvel van den, J. 444 Prindle 19 04:10:30
155 Oosterlynck, Kurt Vandekerckhove, 634 F 18 ongemeten 04:11:21
Myra
156 Jongbloed, Pouw Jongbloed, Helene 3901 Dart 20 04:12:09
157 Houdtzagers, Rene Weerd de, Edwin 472 Nacra 5.5 Sloop 04:12:22
158 Scheers van, Zwijnenburg, Martin 331 Nacra 6.0 04:12:46
GertJan
159 Feddes, Robert Smit, Henry 126X Nacra 5.5 Sloop 04:12:55
160 Lemmens, Victor Henquet, Cecile 239 Nacra 5.5 Sloop 04:13:08
161 Oorthuizen, Mick Oorthuizen, Bram 537 Nacra 5.5 Raid 04:13:24
162 Kanders, Theo Kanders, 289 Nacra 6.0 04:15:51
Theo-Willem
163 Kok, Heleen N.Tanis 319 Nacra 6.0 04:21:01
164 Saelens, Rudi Averbeke van,Joost 582 F 18 gemeten 04:21:06
165 Freijsen, Servaas Vermeulen, Jurgen 412 Nacra 5.5 Sloop 04:21:51
166 Ameijden v.,Sjaak Kaaden v.d., Eric 146X Prindle 18-2 04:23:32
167 Tappermann, Rolf Plateel, Dennis 13632 Hobie 18 04:25:31
168 Karenbeld,Hendrikja Vlies van 554 Nacra 5.5 Raid 04:27:13
n der,Mirjam
169 Ammerlaan, P. Ammerlaan-Schakenr. 338 Nacra 5.5 Sloop 04:29:19
J
170 Sollie, Roel 47 A-Cat 97 04:32:04
171 Jeurissen, Frans Gerritsen, Adrie 450 Nacra 5.5 Sloop 04:32:32
172 Kijf, Michael Meelberg, Michael 57 F 18 gemeten DNF
173 Gelens, Serge Vugt, Ben van 273 Nacra 5.5 Sloop DNF
174 Evengroen, Wilbert Daleman, Rene 5 Nacra 6.0 Raid DNF
175 Kooiman, R.E. Kalis, N. 329 Prindle 18-2 DNF 176 Siep, Carlo Siep, Hans 97337 Hobie 18 Formula DNF
177 Plokker, Wim Voogt, Jantina 810 F 18 gemeten DNF
178 Kappetijn, Herman Olie, Mark 3X F 18 gemeten DSQ
179 Diks, Marcel Beest van, John 149 Tornado DSQ
180 Bokma, W. Timmers, G. 251 F 20 ongemeten DSQ
181 Stoelinga, Erik Dorp, Rob van 23 F 20 ongemeten DSQ
182 Deventer, Peter van Krijthe, Chris 31 F 20 ongemeten DSQ
183 Larsen, Gunnar Geest van, Gerhard 792 F 18 gemeten DSQ
184 Saarberg, Pieter 1XX A-Cat 97 DSQ
185 Heijden Wijk v.d., B. 366 Nacra 6.0 DSQ
v.d.W.H.J.JM
186 Mulder, Rene Schophorst, Kees 674 F 18 gemeten DSQ
187 Balink, Hans Koningslow, Michiel 191 F 20 ongemeten DSQ
188 Dalen van, Ad Imlau, Caroline 035 Hurricane 5.9 DSQ
189 Meyers, Olivier Guisset, Jean-Louis 25 F 18 gemeten DSQ
190 Dijke v,Marjan Hoondert, Sabrina 284 Nacra 5.5 Sloop DSQ
dames
191 Asselt van, Fred Hoeve, Jack 923 Nacra 570 spi DSQ
192 Rakke, Henk Rakke, Ton 63 Miracle 6.0 DSQ
193 Seumeren van, Robin Platteel, Dennis 404 Nacra 5.5 Sloop DSQ
194 Assche van, Kim Assche van, An 408 Nacra 5.5 Sloop DSQ

And here online results with elapsed time quotes

Source www.hellecat.nl again. These are from the oktober bokaal ; a 4 racedays competition in as many weeks.

http://www.hellecat.nl/pop/uitslagen%20oktober%20totaal.html

Hi Matt

With reguard to the rating differences... I would not minimize them.... Acknowledge that they are real BUT.... at the regional level the skill factor on the tiller is probably a 5 % difference. I think people choose their boats for lots of reasons other then rating number. For instance, The I20 is fast, carries weight well but I don't like the look of the hulls ....purely irrational choice on my part. This choice factor is why we have so many designs to choose from.

With reguard to sailing in the largest class... I think that ignores the changes that are occuring in the market place. Why are Hobie 18's not popular any longer? P19's... N 5.8's. We must manage carefully or we will drop people out of the sport. (unless you are serious... you will not keep up with the hot class boat type) Consider that Spin's have cut the performance big boat fleet into two halves. H20's and N6.0's and Tornado's and I20's. What fleet would you join right now, if the rule is that you hold onto your boat for 5 years. UhOh... the F18 class seems to offer a lot of advantages over these classes. Will it grow or flounder.... Hmmm.

These are the issues facing a sailboat racer from another non cat class... . Thow in local differences... they survey the cat scene and go. Nah.. Melges 24's look good..

How about the guy on a budget buying your old 5.8, They may turn into a race nut but without a competitive venue for them you have no chance.

Seems to me we need to get ahead of the curve here. We need a sustainable racing structure that allows new sailors and new racers a clear entry into the sport. Design a racing scene that is rooted in the Hobie /CRAM one design regatta system but is more inclusive...

1) Race the 5 H20's with the 5 N 6.0's on portsmouth... Also score one design.
2) Race the F18's and F20's together until you get to start lines with over 20 boats and then reevaluate. Also score one design.

With respect to weight.... Well it looks like you can probably race an F18 over a 70 lb weight range from 280 to 350 with their equalization scheme I think you MUST ddress the weight issue up front. The F18's have a min of 330 for the big sails. Everyone who is close will add weight to get the big sails. They have a scheme that appears fair for a huge weight range...
This is clearly different then one design sailing and something we should keep.

Seems to me that the 20 niche is going to be 330 to 420. Set a min of 350 and allow them to add weight. I think the formula class should go with two chute sizes to equalize down wind performnance and have the option to get sails from any vendor and measure them in.

I think we should move the f20 fleet to a minimum of 350 with an expected range to 420. Peg the rating at 95 and let designers build future boats to that rating

With respect to your point of leveling what is not level.
Well of course this depends on your point of view... The only level playing field is teams of the same weight on the same boat with the same sails.. Give this criteriia no class is truly level... they are always compromises. . I would not choose to define the current 20 scene as impossible to level...

We need to consider all aspects.
Racing structure
Builder supprt
Racer bias's prejudices support.
Design constraints.

The rank order that i listed are the order that I think we need to address.

My proposal: Formula 18 and 20 boats in one start scored overall, formula, and one design within the hobie/Cram one design structure. Championships could be more restrictive.

Builders already build to a texel of 95/96... lock the rule in and declare it the defacto if20 rule.

Define a minimum of 350 correctable with dead weight. Implement two spin sizes for weight correction. Maintain one design scoring as well as formula scoring.

Design constraints... The texel formula was updated for 2002 The rule has general acceptance in Europe.... Get builder feedback on what it means to lock in a texel rating of 95... Will there be a rule beater to emerge?

Allow Marstrom and other High tech craft to race in open untill they are a significant racing subset.

I think the goals expressed, while good intentioned, are not practical and must be narrowed.
Many of the goals are contradictory.
Choose 1-
Bring more boats (numbers) into the class.
Bring all 20' boats into the class.
Choose 1-
Make it inexpensive enough that more people will modify their boat.
Make the NAF 20 the fastest boat on the water.
Choose 1-
Make the class rules flexible and inclusive.
Make the racing even.
Choose 1-
Make the class popular.
Make the class complicated.
Choose 1-
Include the Tornado.
Include more boats.
Choose 1-
Make the Class better(faster).
Make the racing better.
Choose1-
Waste time worrying about other classes.
Focus on making the NAF 20 work.
Choose 1-
Keep discussing pie-in-the-sky ideas.
Make the Class happen.

Scrape the crud off your shoes and focus on what CAN be done.

Hi Mark -

Interesting proposal , -you basically set a Texel rating number at the Tornado , and race all boats below it .

-You can easily expand this thinking , --have the U S adopt Texel or ISAF for small cats -DESIGN MEASUREMENT -ratings as opposed to Porthmouth. -- ---- this rule concept can easily be applied to all classes and catamarans uniformly . 16 -18-and 20 classes, -and up.

By establishing a max number for each start at distance races or regattas -high middle low -Texel or ISAF--all boat designs have the opportunity to race equally to this number .

--Joking with you little here Mark ,--have been advocating this for the last 3 years , with your objections and insistance and mission statement to race only Porthmouth.

The aspect missing is of course allowing and excouraging modification of existing similar rated boats and new cat designs built to this max .rating that would eventually allow all boats to form equall classes. {equal fair sailing } -remember the goal.

What modifications are allowed to each 20 listed to bring it up to an equall rating , -in this proposal ,-how do boats upgrade and modify up to the Tornado rating ,--how do we insure FAIR SAILING -
-the definitions begin .

If you look at existing 16 and 18 F Classes there are pages of definitions and exact specification ,lists of weights and sail areas . An effort to define a-{class } and insure fair equal racing.
The "rulebeaters " you mention and dismiss by placing onus on builders and ratings are numerous . --thus the reason we see class rules and more definition.
ISAF or TEXEL are rating systems formulated to rate all boats with all design characteristics .

-The basics of rating systems -the box ,-are Length ,-Beam ,-weight,-and sail area,
I suggest a simplified more inclusive class definition , setting length ,-beam , and a sail area to weight uniform scale that all boats can easily understand and modify to , to define class .

-If wider beam designs than 8.5 ft are desired in the class then lets specifically address the problem of how to allow other designs an equal fair modification , for equal performance . -
-There are some good photos of racks -wings on the Mystere web site , ----currently need info on their cost ,-weight , -and attachment , --and opinion on if this beam option is practical .

Carl

Gents,,

I do not believe that Mystere has produced wings for quite some time. And those photo's of M6.0's wth racks would be 5 or 6 years old, and likely custom produced in Europe, to boot.

Bottom line is, that I doubt that they would be available.


Keep at least one hull in the air !!!
Alan Maguire

Hi Carl

A couple of points underlying my proposal.
1) I do not think that many H20'm P19 mx or N 5.8's will reconfigure to meet ANY new f20 rule for 2 reasons. 1) The H20's in particular are racing in class as a sloop rig. There is no evidence that they are chomping at the bit for spinakers unless they use them for distance racing. If they want to race chutes they have two choices, f18 and Inter 20/tornado 2) These boats are probably older ... not as stiff as new boats and probably would not be competitive with an upgrade. They would be very skeptical of investing in a spinaker main and jib to begin with... couple that with a tenuous racing scene for this boat... Will they or won't they get to race the I20 heads up... I just don't see it.
Note also the naf18 group refused to bring in any of the older 18 footers into their class. (They are strictly Twisters, tigers, I18's and F18's.)

The N6.0 class in New England will hold together so long as the majority are interested in sloop racing around triangles.

This boat could easily match the I20 with respect to performance using the texel formula rule.

Portsmouth will be absolutely required to keep these sailors racing. It works. Hopefully we would have enough participation to have a spin and non spin start with several divisions split out.

Take a look at SAiling World editiorial about PHRF, Americap and IOR... The debate over rating systems extends though out sailing. The majority of sail racing uses a performance handicap system ...

I am supporting the formula 20 effort in the hope that a multi builder class will be viable. I think that you can decide to grandfather Mystere 6.0 , Nacra 6.0 and I20 and Fox and Tornado. Allow them to upgrade to a 2002 Texel value of 95.... right now... that is a 38 sec per hour spread, between Fox at 96 and Mystere at a 95 texel rating.

Race for a year and see where you are. IF one boat is dominant because of technical boat design.... the formula class will fold. (We can only hope that the Tiger and F18 are equal in performance.) If the class can achieve critical mass by offering something more then one design that will be fantastic.

(I have to tell you...my eyes glaze over when I read the technical rules in your prior posts..... Help me out with English first.)

I agree the technical details will follow... First... how much support is there for this kind of proposal.


Take Care
Mark

thanks Alan ,
From the photos it appears the racks are simple alum .tubes in rectangular shape with rounded edge connectors , covered by tramp material angled up slightly and addached to the crossbeams .
I,m sure improved designs can be made readily available or built without much expence .
Snuffers are carbon f tubes , this or even plastics may possibley be used, -the connection is the interesting design feature to solve. -

-18 skiffs use huge 10 ft racks , though supported by stays , -not needed with 2.5 ft racks . suprizingly even this size adds an added 800+ ft lbs of righting moment for the average 325 LB crew.
Do a quick estimate on the 18 skiff racks ,-or older Worrell cats that added 12 ft racks to a N 6/0 and others . 325 times 12 =-whew , -
you get a sence of the sail carrying ability and potential top speeds of these craft.

-Raced the Hobie 21 in Prosail and Ultimate Yacht race events in 88 , --The 21 {though very heavy }-has wings , they are fun , easy to get accustome to , add top speed performance , and are a great place to attach spin blocks to for better sheeting angles .

All designer have stated that the existing 20s are overpowered , --the speed potential of 20s is limited by its righting moment = 8.5 beam , allowing 16 and 18s better speed potential in some conditions. --What reason do the 8.5 beam 20 ft cats have to exist in their present forms as new 16 and 18 designs sail by at higher speeds , what is the attraction of this configuration of boat , -other than it requires larger people to hold it down in a breeze.

-Should we base a class soley on any existing design , the I-20 ? Tornado ? --Should we accept duplicate and compound design errors and problems of existing designs , or set an ideal standard and the difficult task of attempting to unify all existing racing 20s. for equal performance class FAIR Sailing , --
-Believe once it is refined it will fall within a minute margin within the ISAF -Texel ratings ,

Carl-
-



-

Hi Mark
Please excuse the many typos ,and poor eyesight , have to go get glasses ,but keep putting it off . . promise to hit spellcheck if drafting actual class rules.

-Believe the disatisfaction with open racing and Porthmouth ratings is partially responcible for the decline of the sport . -

-Hope you are beginning to comprehend how much more systematic and how we can all relate through design measurement more readily to form unified potential racing classes ,-, --just maybe the long term solution to the ratings problems universally you mention.---A common language of math and design formula.

--Your original proposal and now recomendation of -
{Race for a year and see where you are. IF one boat is dominant because of technical boat design.... the formula class will fold} --

--The proposal is as you suggest a receipy for failure ,and am presently unsure if this is the intent ,

All the best to you regardless of our disagreement on Porthmouth ratings , and your insistance on their necessity.

Carl -

link to the F -18 N A web site ,-

-http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/naf_18/

Hi Carl.... I agree with the glasses upgrade... i keep puting my exam off as well.

--Your original proposal and now recomendation of -
{Race for a year and see where you are. IF one boat is dominant because of technical boat design.... the formula class will fold} --

--The proposal is as you suggest a receipy for failure ,and am presently unsure if this is the intent ,

Hi Carl
You can't have it both ways. Either the Texel rating formula accurately rates the boat or it does not. If the boats are rated equal... then you have a formula class.... if the rating is in error... so that one boat doiminates... then the formula was wrong and so its the end of that formula class and you revert back to handicap racing.

What evidence is there that the texel ratings are off.

The evidence that wouter reported showed that the boats are very very close in speed. The only name that I recognize is Peter Vink and he is a noted sailmaker over there. It looks like the f20's (fox and inter are very close to the Tornado)

Grand father the following boats. Mystere 6.0 Xl 95 Tornado 95, (only 10 foot beam in the class) Nacra 6.0 NA 94 or 95?, Fox 94 and EU and NA I20 94. create a box rule with a beam at 8.5 beam for any new designs This is the easiest and only way in my view to get to formula . Allow all boats to come up to the 95 rating such as the Nacra 6.0 NA I would target the bigger teams... and set the class min at 350. then go race. The I20's are the dominant US Class they would be scored on their one design and those meeting the min weight rule would also be eligle for formula 20.

Where do you disagree here.???
(Other then freezing significant development in this class.)
And attempting to bring in the older boats)

I still think beleive that the most important part here is locking in the race venues. Cat fight and Spring Fever bill themselves as run what you brung and we will sort it out on handicap. I agree with you. .. run what you brung in a formula 20 race would be even better. If this philosophy was available at the local level we would be far more succesful.

Take Care
Mark

Mark,

I agree that most H20's won't be moving into the F20 class. The H20's already have a strong class where we often get 10 boats at a start. Last year in Des Moines we had 20 H20's. My point is that you won't attract these boats so I wouldn't worry about them.

As far as the racks go they sound like fun and all but it's a little blue sky to think that everyone will buy racks to race the 1 Tornado that might show up. Tornado's are the Olympic Cat that like's one design racing. They also aren't interested in the F20 class in my opinion.

On Crew Weight: Since the min. on the Cat III F18 rule is 330lbs, maybe the min. for the F20 should be 350 or so. Of course we would allow teams to add weight to come up to the 350 level.

I don't believe F18 will be as fast as F20. I've seen the best race both boats boat for boat and they are definitely different as far as speed goes.

Mike Hill

Thanks Mike

I agree most top tornado's won't be interested in a f20 class. There are only 15 or 20 boats racing at the national level and you don't see them racing locally. I don't sail at that national level... for the local racing an f20 rule that is inclusive would be terrific.

The most important reason for keeping the Tornado involved is for promotoers and sponsors. Sailing means Olympics or America's cup... Occasiionally the Volvo race or the single handed sailor gets some attention but really... Olympics is the big hook Without participation from the Olympic guys it would be hard to market and expand the support. Those guys would love a way to leverage their sponsorship and perhaps get some funding for their olympic campaigns.

It may never happen but there is no sense in crippling the marketing push before you even start.

I am very pleased that you see the racing niche that the NaF18 class has just defined. IE. 350 lbs that you can weight correct up to/ I think makes sense.

Just curious.. If a H20 sailor is looking for the next challenge... which way do you think they go. f18 or f20.
i have sailed Nacra's F18 a couple of times... the sheer power that I am used to on my Tornado and on the I20 is just not there. Ratings wise... an H20 to f18 move is literaly sideways.

Take Care
Mark

Hi Mark and Mike

Agree mark you can,t ,-It seems your trying to have it both ways , using Texel as a class rating , but not understanding the advantages of it applied to all racing in the US , --
--CONFLICTING IDEALS -

-Again ISAF or Texel are formulated and intended rating systems for ALL cat designs .
You are confusing rating systems with class definition .
The 18 or 16 classes did not say ,-o k we have a rating number here is our class . Again ,--please look at their pages of rules defining what a CLASS is , -again the rule beaters are numerous if you do not define a class , -am suprized you can not understand the need for class definition . Again why would 16s and 18s bother if it were not needed to some extent. -
All cat designs within the defined class would rate within an acceptable margin of ISAF tEXEL rating , once refined.

-COMPRENDA -

-Hi Mike -
thanks ,-some H sailors may become more interested over time ,---was a H-18 sailor for a decade or so myself, -,do like the look of the Tiger.

-If you talk to some of the top dog sailors , -they will tell you the F-18S will have comparble performance in the upper wind ranges , --different opinions ,--we will find out next season .

--Question ,--should the proposed 20 class consider 2 catagories ,-10 ft and 8.5 beam .

Again I don,t have all the answers , or resources to put this together , we currently have no major dealer or mfg. support or specification agreement , if we did have a base of boats and mfg. this would be done.

-Again a very difficult set of existing conditions. -
People keep confusing the fact that we did not set these existing conditions or are responcible for them ,-or feel the need to compound them by repeating the same errors and existing design flaws or endorcing them .

Carl
-

Mark,

F18 or F20 depends on the H20 sailor. If the sailor is going to keep the same crew he will probably opt for the F18. If the sailor was looking to move into a more powerful boat they probably would go the F20 route.

Honestly I don't believe you will see a many converts from the H20 ranks. H20's are made up of many husband wife teams that don't want a chute. There will be some that want a chute and there will be some that are heavy for the H20 that like the F20 idea. My guess would be an even split between F18 and F20. Many H20 sailors buy and sail the boat because it is the biggest fleet. They won't move until they see a fleet possiblity for the F18/F20 boats.

Mike Hill
H20 #791

I don't believe Texel is the way to go to equalize boats. It may give you some idea of speed potential but it doesn't equalize the boats. Texel has no windrange's. Boats then that do well in light air suffer in heavy and vice-verse.

On Comparing F18/F20 speed. On a very windy Midwinters with Lambert/Patsy on the F18 and Nigel/Alex on the F20 it looked like the F18 was very fast but came in a little behind the F20. The F18 beat some slower I20's but the top dogs were seperated by a few minutes.

I believe we have to settle on an 8.5 beam or this just won't work at all.

Mike Hill
H20 #791

You are right Mike .

For this to work as other existing Formula classes is to get the manufacturers on board .

Hobie should be willing to upgrade the Fox , it will not sell otherwise in N A , it is an excellent basic design --We need Mystere , -Boyer, -Ventilo ,-Stealth , and several other excellent mfg. on board .
Basic I-20 specs ,but upgraded slightly - 380 boat weight , -some minor upgrades to allow mfg. room to improve .

I would be very happy to get any active racing F-racing going , and help any of the classes , this will be good for the sport.

-Start a new post and work through , crew weight -
The F-18 did a great job , most of the work is complete ,it may be largely a matter of filling in correct specs for 20s -