Hi Wouter and friends…

I would like to share some thought on the matter of the rule changes…especially the weight and Mast height.



Although my boat is far from completed…and the proposed changes will not cause me to modify anything that I have built so far…I have to say my vote is no to the changes on weight and mast height for the following reasons…



The thing that attracted me to the F-16HP in the first place was the freedom of rules…or maybe better stated…a minimum of rules, which allowed for a tremendous amount of experimentation while still keeping the perimeters tight enough to insure fair competition.



Our class was described as cutting edge…with flexibility in the design criteria to inspire builders to stretch out of their comfort zones, and help bring cat sailing into the 21 century. Now after a year, which really hasn’t allowed much time for development, we are looking at lowering the bar…inching back toward the same old same old…I have to ask why?



No one seems to think there is any significant advantage to having a 9 meter mast over a 8.5 meter mast…if this is the case…why not leave it as it is…at least it allows for further development…why stifle creativity? The rig design will seek its own optimum…why put artificial restrictions on it? In what real way is it hurting the class? Is it some kind of psychological disadvantage to race against someone whose mast is 19-1/2” longer?



Increasing the minimum weight …As far decreasing the weight difference between one up and two up I have no quarrel…the idea of a 3 Kg difference seems logical. Raising the minimum weight of the class as a whole I see as counter productive to the original intent of being “cutting edge”…again…Why not leave room for improvement? Why go backwards?



I am in full agreement that we need to work, with not against the boat builders who express and interest in marketing a cat within the F-16HP class. But the standards have been set, it is up to the manufactures to meet the criteria in place, not the other way around. There is a lot of room for innovation…and we are not necessarily talking about autoclave technology here…



Right now I can buy 5.7 oz Carbon fiber cloth 0/90 50” wide for $17.94 a lineal yd. ($108.00 US per layer/per hull) or 5.0 oz Kevlar cloth 0/90 50” wide for $13.98 a lineal yd. (About $84.00 US per layer/per hull) or 6 oz S-glass 0/90 60” wide for $11.27 a lineal yd (About $70.00 US per layer/per hull) I am talking Retail prices here…If you are buying wholesale in large enough quantities the price could be a much as 40% less. Any one of these fabrics could be used to decrease the weight of the hulls. It would not be necessary to gain all the weight reduction by going to carbon spars, although it is the best place to reduce weight.



This is assuming they are already using a quality Vinylester resin…I would think no one would be using Iso or Ortho Polyester at this point in time.



I am not accusing anyone of over pricing there product, I am not accusing anyone of making an inferior product…Boat builders are in business to make a profit… and if they don’t, we all lose… it’s an incredibly nasty, obnoxious job to build a GRP boat… and they deserve every penny they get…I am just saying there are alternatives out there…and IF there is a reason to build a better “mouse trap” someone will eventually build it…and the others will quickly follow…but if the incentive is taken away…there will be little to inspire change, especially since there is so little profit built into the product as it is. After all we are only talking 11 pounds here…5% of the overall all up weight…it is possible…and possible at a reasonable cost…it’s just a lot easier to maintain the status quo…



As I look at the proposed changes, I can’t help but notice that the new minimums would put the Taipan 4.9 very near the optimum design parameters. The only thing lacking is to narrow up the beam specification and it would make the Taipan fully optimized…Is that going to be the next proposed change? From what I read here on the forum, the Taipan is by far the best represented boat of the class…and don’t get me wrong…I love the Taipan 4.9 and the boat I am building borrows from it liberally…but I thought this was suppose to be a box rules F-16HP class? If I knew from the onset that the F-16HP class was going to evolve into another name for the Taipan 4.9 one design class, I would have built a compliant Tiapan 4.9 one design… Also, are the other commercial boat builders going to perceive this as favoritism? Whether intentional or not?



So in conclusion…I would like to say…please let the maximum weight of the two-up remain at 100 Kg. (bring the one up weight to 97 KG if necessary) and leave the Mast height at 9 Meters. Lets keep the possibilities wide open, at the forefront of the fleet. If we start compromising now we might be taking the first step toward mediocrity…



Thank you for letting me share my opinions, and it is my hope that I have not offended anyone here with what I have said…I like to have all the facts on the table when I go about making a decision, especially one that will have such lasting ramifications.



Peace