Let me start by welcoming you to this forum Steve, I certainly hope you'll enjoy the discussions and contents as much as we all do.

Now to the issue at hand;

I want to defuse the situation here, guys. Obviously the Formual 16 rule is a formula rule and not another Taipan 4.9 one-design rule. The last would be something remarkable as the first full compliant design in the class is the Stealth F16. So if we needed to rename the class than it would have to be renamed to "F16 for Stealths F16's only".

With regard to the Bim Javelin 16 design I have no problems with that design as the local class head for the Netherlands. I have a Bim 16 crew in my local class and I'm looking forward to seeing them race in the Dutch F16 class. As the local class head for the Dutch F16 class I won't prevent them from racing with us in this any way. And I personally think this is in the spirit of the Formula 16 class; inclusiveness remember ?

I'm also confident that my excel sheet has shown that the perceived disadvantage of F16 rigs in relation to 0,5 mtr. taller uni rig setups with the same or less rated main sailarea is unfounded.

I also wish to underline that the class has some experimental data of a sloop taipan (yes, that boat again) against a modern wavepeircer A-cat, both sailed by very good sailors and that the Taipan was in no way disadvantaged. The resutls were gethered in very light to medium winds. So we don't only have theoretical data but also experimental data showing that the perceived inequality is mostly that "perceived". The rated sailarea rules has thus far proven to hold up.

It has been the decision of the bimare yard and related officials to stay with the 9 mtr. uni -rig setup. And that is their good right, and it their javelin-16 class, if they feel that that is more competitive than a sloop version, so be it. And like Steve says let them proof it on the race course. It must be remembered that it is not a declared Formula 16 design and it wasn't declared as such when I mailed the Bimare yard much earlier this year. And I have a few interesting e-mail clippings from that time to proof it. And I do keep them informed about new developments by the way; (Have done so in the past too). From this perspective it is an single manufacturer one design class, as was their mission statement on their former website; remember the creation of the Jav A class as a One-design A-cat ? Now it also has comparable performance to the formula 16 class and will be welcomed as such. Again, I'm looking forward to racing them.

Now I also wish to set some other things straight. That picture on the website is a picture of a Javelin 2.

With respect to Steves statement :"Firstly, the fact that the prototype has been launched, sailed & photographed proves that it was designed before the F16 class members decided to change the rules"

Despite my intensive search for information I have not been able to confirm this fact and the fact that a Jav 2 picture is displayed above the Jav-16 comments does not "proof" to me that the design (prototype) has been photographed. I see no point in reacting on the other "facts"; all other builders (Stealth, AHPC, Blade) will confrim that I kept all of them very well informed. Now I don't really understand what lead Steve to make a comment in the other direction or how as a bystander he should be in the know.

With regard to our class intention; it is the intention of the F16 class to garantee general equality between boats of different make and a (suggested) speed rating difference of 2 % can be considered to be pushing it a bit. I haven't checked this myself yet, I admit. Maybe I should make the time in the next couple of days and do so.

I do know however that all the measured Bim 16's up till this time arrived at a rating equal or slower than the F16 and that is the most important consideration when welcoming a non-fully compliant design to our open and inclusive class.

As for the rules, every rule in there has been adjusted for the better as a result of clear and unanimous agreed upon principles. They will improve equality between fully compliant designs and direct development towards refinement of the designs rather than outclassing the others by having more of something.

But I can assure the Bim 16 sailors that the outcome of the ballot will certainly not automatically mean their exclusion.

Now lets focus on the ballot and the upcoming events.

With kind regard,

Wouter