When Phill Brander, Kirt Simmons and myself wrote and perfected the class rules, making use of many good suggestions by the early F16 sailors, we actively ruled out a wing sail. This is not to say that we intended it to stay forbidden for ever.

I think we all saw the class rules as a living thing and understand that at times the class rules need to be amended to garantee the continued succes of the class, just as much as disallowing things is required at times to garantee the same.

Additionally it was considered valuable to allow experiments in a controlled environment so they could both proof or disproof themselves. I feel Rolf has understood that part of the F16 rules very well. He even mentioned it himself during the T-foil discussions of several months back.

Basically the construct was a follows. Elements that were considered prohibitively expensive, cumbersome or inaccessible to the large majority of the F16 target group were banned by the rules. Wingsails were on of them. Elements that were expected to become practical, affordable and accessible within a relatively short time frame were allowed. The latter included carbon masts and T-foil rudders as well as the general use of carbon, kevlar and high performance sail cloths like cuben fibre and the "sail drive" laminates. One could say the class was geared towards making the most of the refinements encountered during its first decade.

A provision was added where an experimental craft deploying an outlawed component could be allowed to enter F16 races and possible be scored as well. An official request to the local F16 head or the International body is required for that and these may turn down your request if they feel that there is a good reason to do so. This provision is included to allow geeks to try out new stuff on the F16's. The deal they can get is that if they can proof it to work, to be affordable and accessible to the large majority of F16 sailors then a F16 rule change may follow.

This concept is fully intended to avoid losing the game in the future as some classes did when the asymmetric spinnaker was introduced on cats. If such a development comes along in the future then I feel the F16 class such serious consider adopting it.

Basically you sometimes have to go with the times (adopt new technologies) for survival even if that means a temporary setback to the class.

If you want to see what happens when you don't do this then look at the Unicorns, Old Tornado's, Taipans and Spitfires. Brilliant craft in their own right, but nevertheless they are losing the game against never designs that can make use of the improvements made since these classes were launched.

But even more importantly I believe that the F16's as they are now are pretty efficient already. As such I believe 90% of the hot topics like full foiling and the wingsail will fall down when put to the test against well designed conventional boats. When that happens then the whole discussion becomes mute and such a thing can be extremely healthy to the class as you have ended the discussion beyond any doubt, second guessing or hard feelings.

What I'm trying to say here is that it may actually be alot smarter to allow such things as the wingsail to be tested inside your class structure (but in a controlled manner) then disallowing it upfront. It was this realisation that lead to the open structure in the class rules (we allow alot of things and materials while others except the A's simply don't) and the provision (even stimulation) of testing new concepts on the F16's against conventional F16's.

And to finish this line of reasoning off. I found new developments and their testing to be a promotional gift from God. Every sailor out there loves to read about new stuff and do comparisons between old and new. It also gives the class a very "can do" mentality that many sailors appreciate. You attract the brightest minds and most proliferic homebuilders to your class. You get awarded with a thriving class with many active members and a well respected stature in the catamaran scene. All of these are worth alot of temporary setbacks when you have to make a choice between them. However, often you don't need to choose between these and with careful guidence they can be made to enchance one another.

An example of the last is the creation of a healthy turn-over of boats. I refer to my departing brief for more info on that. Slow development (= slow outdating of boats) is GOOD ! Because it takes long enough for a boat to become outdated and uncompetitive, but when it does it becomes a very attractively prices entry point for newbies who will not be held back much at all by a small technical disadvantages when they still have to learn so much. Take a look at the F18's for an example of that. Nacra Inter 18's won't win you a World or European championship but it does bring in lots of new members to the class and keeps boat builders afloat through spare parts.


So Rolf if you want to, then go ahead. You got my help !

Just make sure that practicallity, affordability, accessibility are included in the design stages or just accept your setup will not be awarded an "experimental dispensation"


And just to make perfectly clear; an craft on an "experimental dispensation" can never become an F16 champion even though he may be scored 1st. The dispensation is only there to proof yourself and your concept in the large fleet, not as a "cheat route to a championship".

Wouter