.... would be happy to help support F-16 ,-,----but this again is not the way to promote the 16 class . -I will help with the 18s if I can ,....


Than please avoid conflict and leave these classes their part of the weight spectrum. That is the best help we can get.


>>If this total weight to sail area is enacted and becomes as successfull as I believe,-- it can easily be applied to all Formula classes , still maintaining ones within if desired ,--


Well, I understand that system. I wish you luck in selling the concept. I had already a difficult time selling the simplified concept of smaller is equally fast. I got there, but a I doubt wether I could have sold a more complex system. Maybe you can however.


>>In discussing this concept over the last 2 years understood this was the real goal ,--A comprehensive FORMULA system in 3 Length catagories that would include the vast majority of cat racing sailors. ----we just have different concepts ,--
Lighten up .


I think we're still on the same concept and the progress has been very good so far. We're almost there in creating a complete and all spanning formula framework. But formulae are popping up all over the place and try to conquer the same weightranged, this can easily undo all that has been achieved.

So I ask leave the other weight ranges to the other classes.

This F20 is a 20 foot class and 20 ft. are more suited to heavy crews than the other classes and vice versa. Now I'm sure that you can sail 20 ft. with your kid and wife, but it is not the class for them. So don't try to make it their class. Else the three length formula framework will be undermined.


>>>The best aspect of the 20 rule is allowing entry level racers , who will most likely begin with stock older less expensive boats with smaller sail areas , --Once they get better skills they move up . --This is how we begin to grow partisipation in the sport .


I really differ in this respect I really don't think that 20 ft. are "the best aspect"of the 20 ft. class. Ask any tornado sailor, ask John P.. They will all tell you that these designs are just to powerfull for beginners. And also too expensive, even second hand.

No the best aspect of the 20 ft was to cater the adrenalin junkies as was the first intend of the class.


-Let me know how to help wout ,--continueing this type of diologue is childish .


Indeed, Leave us our weight range. Fill the need at the top end with this F20 class. Leave mid ranges to F18 and the light to mid and solo to F16. Than we'll have a balanced setup.

If we get into a direct conflict here than we'll kill eachother off for nothing for light to medium crews are unlikely to be really competitive anyway in the 20 ft. range.

regards,

Wouter

Hi Marc

First point. your comments to Wouter were WAY out of line and were a personal attack. I hope you will apologize!

I understood him to mean that a 400 lb team on a 295 min boat like a H20 would be at a bigger disadvantage then on a H20 with a 350 lb minimum. That is it.

You may agree / disagree or ask him to clarify his point. The attack by ridicule and insult was pointless.

Second point
your point about light teams, Women and teenagers racing on 20 foot boats misses the general point.
1) I also know mixed teams that kick my butt. Greg and Casey Scace come to mind. Can Casey out grind my crew on the boat doubtful does she outgrind other crews perhaps. Is it the critical factor... no. Does this debate have any relevance no.. Attacking the general argument with an example is trivial.

I am pointing out the observation that MOST couple teams are not racing 20 foot boats with spinnakers. Apparently, most couple teams are not looking to race 20 foot boats with chutes in the future based on conversations with the local dealer AND by observing the Euro I20 racing at texel. Are some couple teams looking to race 20 footers?. Probably. I pointed out one. You note Alan and Karen Ann. Carl and Sandra raced. The exceptions are not disproving the general point.

I pointed out one reason that couple teams might not want to race a 20 footer. Sheet loads as one being relevant to racing the boat around triangles where doublers are too slow to jibe and on a closed course crash jibes are possible.

You suggested
Boat weight.... No... the F18 is heavier by rule then a 390lb I20.
Trailer width. No. 8 feet 6 inches versus 8 feet 3 inches ... Both legal in North America.

Potential for class growth.... Hmm... Well that is the big issue now isn't it.
Why would they think that the new F18 would be MORE POPULAR then staying in an existing 20 foot type class.

Perhaps they conclude.
1) their team weight is close to optimum for the class.
2) they can do more then "handle the boat"... they could be competitive at the elite level.
3) Why not on an F20 boat??? Perhaps they will not be limited by some physical factor. weight, strength, endurance, height.. rather they will be limited by their sailing skill. (which is the point after all)
4) perhaps they judge that the Fun Factor is higher on less powerful boat.
5) Perhaps, all their competitors are moving down. so.. they want to join them.

All are quite plausible reasons.

My take home point is an obvious one in that the sailors are choosing an optimal design for them. Crew weight is one of several parameters in their decision.

AND…Most importantly... CREW WEIGHT is one of the things that a class can control easily.

The idea… is that just as in Hobie 16 one design racing.. you can set a floor on weight and Enhance competitive fairness. As wouter cleverly noted… why go shoot at the F18’s pigeons. Why not target a different segment of the market.

Finally, What is to stop Alan and Karen Ann from adding weight to their cross bar and racing at 350… are they more or less at a competitive disadvantage as a team at 400 lbs in the proposed if20 class with a minimum at 350.

Fairness is in the eye of the beholder I guess.
There are options of grandfathering in teams, boats etc etc. Right now the debate is over the general philosophy.

Obviously we disagree. I suggest that we take a measure of the possible f20 sailors and see where we stand.

Take Care
Mark

Carl,

I forgot about the weight to sailarea proposal. I don't believe that requiring many different mains and jibs is appropriate. Possibly we could vary Chute size for weight but this may be tough to equalize. Whatever rule we come up with there will be a perceived sweet spot just as there is now with the F18 class. Max sail area at 340lbs in F18 is thier perceived sweet spot. I am not against this concept but I would like to see some real tank tests/ wind tunnel tests/ real life experience to back up the numbers otherwise we would be shooting in the dark.

My personal belief is that we are already at a 350 min. That is a good size for two men on the boat (175+175). Some teams may weigh in at (175+200)375 but not really notice the difference on the boat. I've never been able to notice less than 25lbs difference having an effect on performance. So my view is that varying sail area may have more of a negative effect than a positive effect. Of course this also is operating on the premise that teams that weigh less than 350 will be more attracted to the F18 class where it tops out at 340. And also assuming you can add whatever you want to come up to 350 if you would like to race in the F20 class.

Getting back to boat weight I think it would be too hard to police this issue and we would have people pushing the rules too often causing major discontent among the sailors. In a perfect world it would be nice but you and I both know we don't have time to weigh boats at weekend regattas.

Carl said:
-If you are 50 LBs heavier is there some objection to a 50 sq ft larger chute ,-15 sq ft larger main ,-and 5 jib , -{example #}

-Please state how this could be construed as not equal ,-

Ok, I'll try to explain. Take someone that I regularly beat at a regatta where we sail one-design. He finds a 225lbs crew that doesn't know how to sail and gets the adjustment sails factor. He then proceeds to beat me in all the races. My only conclusion to stay competitive is to buy new sails and get a 225lbs crew myself. Does this seem fair?

Mike Hill
H20 #791

Hi mark -
Because you do not see many female , smaller sailors or junior sailors in your area is no reason to exclude them from racing any boat they choose , -
This is very faulty logic and again very inconsistant thinking applied , --you can,t have it both ways , ---20s aren.t o k -but 18 H P CATS ARE ? ---lets be honest and realistic .

-The other aspect you and wout are touting that we have to swabble over dwindling numbers of sailors , -THIS IS ABSURD , --Numerous racing sailors are interested , several have posted and stated they will return to racing and many new sailors will begin ,--as I mentioned I have 3 myself,-They need to be able to race in any class , and not be excluded from them .
If your and Wouts philosophy is applied { glass half empty }
and foolish exclusionary rules are put in place it will certainly be a self fofilling prophecy, doomed to fail just as one or the other 18 classes are bound to as they become more diluted. My bet is the heavier.

-As my 5 year old says ,-{-sink about it }

take care
Carl

Hi Mike
your starting to get there -

The majority of existing sailors have weighed their boats if you read their posts ,--I certainly trust you to be honerable and the vast majority of people who race , . Again this chart is not that difficult to comprehend ,

-The tank testing and sweet spot you refer to changes constantly with each different weather pattern wave and current condition on each point of sail differently for the vast array of boats we have and will have in the future .

Formula racing --all --IS DEVELOPEMENTAL to some degree .
The race course becomes a giant test tank and wind tunnel ,
-At least with Formula we can discover which combinations really do work best in each varying condition, -
THATs the game boat choise modification of your choosing and set up is a part of it . Some will whine , some always do even racing one design as we all know.

-Your conclusion that you will need heavy crew is interesting , Why would you believe this when all boats would rate equally , the heavier boat with more sail area is not necessarily faster , --Have you ever sailed the same start with an A Class cat , with only 150 sq ft of sail area, ? . -Are you saying ISAF and TEXEL rating are totally innaccurate ?

-You can reverse your scenario and apply it to one design to min weight , only there you have a ligit complaint as there is no weight compensation to sail area.

thanks for the input ,--understand Formula is something different that I,m learning most will not understand fully .
For those promoting the Formula Class it will be an educational process to some degree.

The F-18 High Performance Class sounds interesting , -
If we have a unified large 20 class it may attract the largest partisipation by far for that inclusive quality within the rule .
More open of a race what ya got attitude , Just come out race in one big diverse fleet and have fun , is my vision .

All the best Mike
Carl

-


-

Ok, let me first say this MHB -- you where out of line in attacking Wouter. He is often trying but he does have a depth of knowledge and is try to help. Wouter, I thank you for your opinion.

Carl, I respect your opinion also, but changing sail plans gets cost prohibative when you look at varying crew weights and formulas inside the class.

Gentlemen, we need to look at working with other formula classes. We each have a niche to go after. Looking to what is happening in the F18 class with the push for HP -- basically it is self destructing. Is anyone going to move up or down in to a formula class. NOT if we start picking each others bones over trivial issues.

The basic 350 crew weight minimum with correction corrects every male/female H20 team that I know of. SO that arguement atleast in this area is mute. Do we want junior sailors in what is suppose to be the premier F class? No, we need to use F16 and F18 as breeder classes. Having NAF-20 being the top F class is where we need to be. Having well trained race teams racing over powered boats is exciting to watch as much as to do. THat is our market.

NAF-20 (the legal class name --iF20 is not) is a marketable venture when you address the basics and place an eye on what can happen a few years down the line. Are there better boats in the world? Yes. But, who is racing them? And why would everyone of us go spend our hard earned dollars to have one right now? What we need to focus on is getting people back on the water in an inclusive format -- (everyone that can meet the minimum requirements). Hell, its kind of like joining the ARMY (no offense intented) We take eveyone as long as they can meet the minimums OR correct to them.
Will new boats come along? YES. SHould we embrace them now? NO!

Look at the Mhullers. A few years ago a hot new boat came out -- the viper 830. God was it fast, light, strong, kick the crap out of everything on the water. Did it sell?? HELL NO! TOO much money getting rid of the old boats! Are the J's still around? Yep! because it is CHEAP to race and there was alot of them. SO the builder is making a smaller version called the Viper 640. THe J guys use them to train new crew!!

History has a funny way of repeating itself and those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Gentlemen, 350 crew weight works. As does boat minimum of 385. Sail area needs to be capped somewhere lets look at that instead of trying to revisit the weight issues. THe question you need to ask is what SA is fast for a crew weight range of 350-400 lbs + a boat of 385?

Hobie, PC, and Mystere have agreed to configure a boat in the 550sq ft area. Do we want this across the board or is this TOO MUCH SA? No different amounts allowed by class rules. But, if you want to race less than thats ok. Also, the class needs to agree that the mast and sails can be bought from any NAF20 class approved sailmaker. Let the sailmaker be the measureres of the sails.

Please think of this.

Respectfully
Steve

Oh yes MHB, apologize to wouter and I am sorry if I bit you on the other board.

To all,

>> I understood him to mean that a 400 lb team on a 295 min boat like a H20 would be at a bigger disadvantage then on a H20 with a 350 lb minimum. That is it.


That is exactly what I meant. In light air there are hardly any limiting principles like righting moment and than the lightest crew with respect to sail area will win. Min. overall weight is intend to address this equality problem when sail area is fixed at one size for praticality.

In this respect setting a normal minimum is very instrumental in stimulating fairness in all conditions including light air. Without it heavy crews will alsway loose out in light air.


>>You may agree / disagree or ask him to clarify his point.

My clearification is above.


>> no.. Attacking the general argument with an example is trivial.

Agree. And that applies to me too. So here guys; here I offer my hand.


>>> AND…Most importantly... CREW WEIGHT is one of the things that a class can control easily.

I second that.


>>> Finally, What is to stop Alan and Karen Ann from adding weight to their cross bar and racing at 350… are they more or less at a competitive disadvantage as a team at 400 lbs in the proposed if20 class with a minimum at 350.


Good point Mark !


>>Fairness is in the eye of the beholder I guess.

Ohh yeah, and not always are these confirmed by numbers. And vice versa.

Wouter

I agree with all of Steve's points above:

1. Keep it SIMPLE (or people will ignore it)
2. 350 lbs min crew weight works
3. 385 lbs min boat weight works (with periodic reductions)
4. Some SINGLE limit on SA.

Just making these simple limits work and getting the class off of the ground is going to be hard enough! If we try to add special cases, exceptions, options for this, variations for that.....the whole thing devolves into a mess that is even less attractive than Portsmouth!

Sail fast and have fun,
Alan Thompson
I20 - San Diego

>>>The other aspect you and wout are touting that we have to swabble over dwindling numbers of sailors , -THIS IS ABSURD ,

>>>is no reason to exclude them from racing any boat they choose , -


The reason to haggle over these weight spans is equality and fairness of racing while keeping costs acceptable.

I will put it into a question :

On a nice warm day with a 5 knot wind I bring my regular crew of 400 lbs. You look at the weather and decide that the winds are light enough to bring your little nethew. How can you explain to me that this racing is still fair ? Fair as intended in the formula class.

Now you could reply to my question by saying that you will just pick the smallest of those 5 spare rigs (main, mast, jib and genaker sets) that you always cary around in your modified trailor. But how can you sells this to a crew starting out in the class and that can not buy 5 complete rigs of different sizes ?

The Only you can do in that situation that would be fair is to take along all your nieces and nephews untill you make minimum. you can still race with your younger familiy members and I don't have to give you a 180 lbs weight advantage. and thus practically give you the line honours and the price of the day.

That was talking about your class. Now move down to do smallest class.

There, there is no minimum and you can sail solo with nephew and even with you wife. And no heavy crew can complain to you that you are unfair by being so light. Why because there are no teams in that F class that are heavy enough to notice a real disadvantage. Even a adult with small kid will weight in at at least 240 lbs so the biggest weight disadvantage will be 90 lbs. Also way less than the 180 lbs in the earlier example. No solo sailors are lighter but are also at a disadvantage with respect to handling.

Now look at the mid range class lowest is 310 and highest 350. Only 40 lbs difference. Now this must be the class with the closest racing !

So everyboy is catered and not subjected to accusations about unfairness.

And this is the strength of a three length formula framework.

Wouter

Hi wout

All formula classes are developemental to some extent --
This means variables in sails and overall design features as defined within limits per class definitions .

Existing Formula classes use various jib and spin sizes to adjust for crew weight .

This proposed 20 rule combines total weight to a sail area formula ,-{more comprehensive approach } -\
--
-You provide extreme examples , ignore the same effects on existing Formula classes , jump to false scenarios , -mislead , then state how wonderfull you believe 16s are .
Racing sailors are smart , they can deside this for themselves , based on the excellence of design and their requirements .

--Sails --All Formula class racing sailors if they change crew would need different spin and jib sizes to max. allowed in the rules .

New 20 rules proposed are no different , --roller furling jibs are allowed ,--changing sail area ,--reef points on the main are allowed ,--2 spin sizes for each team are allowed ,--and in the 20 class 2 mains labeled and approved would be allowed .
I would remind you that any Formula Class inc 16 could have a full main built and a flatter main built , both within the limitation of class rules and choose the one that best fit the weather forcast for that regatta weekend . -

-In the 20 class sailors that modify existing boats to max allowed sail area per rules would of course keep their older smaller main , and potentially use it , along with their roller furling jib if it was in the above 20 wind strength that weekend ,--This adds an element of seamanship along with furlers and optional reef points in the main that I wish we had available during the Worrell 1000 races . -

-In allowing sailors to go to any sail maker for their sails is there the potential for some to buy speed , --yes , true for any developemental class , but sail areas are all equal along with total weight ,
This is not complex or difficult to comprehend .

Your objections and extreme scenarios are based in fear that the 16s will not be accepted . --Again these are excellent designs that will attract numerous sailors ,
What I,m politely trying to say is the extreme examples and insistance on rules for other classes you do not intend to partisipate in , but post with intent to promote 16s ,actually has the oposite effect and result , and is not constructive or helpfull to ANY formula class .

Do appreciate the efforts and hard work you put in the 16 class and have stated so numerous times on the various forums as you know -

All the best -
Carl