There is no denying it but the F16 class was indeed formed from this frustration that you descibe here.

A small group was fed up with the expensive low-tech stuff we were offered by the big boys as "the next big step in cat sailing".

So indeed, I think the initial group qualifies as "Techno-enthusiasts with a chip on their shoulders"

I certainly qualify for that.

About being narrow minded; I don't really see that. Again we have actively endorsed racing with other designs in the past, we also actively endorse "open class handicap racing" were we favour one big single fleet with a single start instead of several smaller OD starts. At least that was the policy during my tenure (2001 - 2006).

We have indeed set a few rules to which any F16 must adhere. These were included to garantee fair and equal racing between boats of different make and stimulate the public perception of that.

Please note that in the past we had a mast length and sail area rule that allowed an infinite number of different combinations to qualify as F16's. Our experience was that boat designers, sailmakers and class members were too challenged to understand this rule and use it correctly. One of the best things we did was to simplify this rule in 2003 for a simple "max mast length-max sail area-max luff length" combination.

Some can call that narrow minded or a rule set that is being too restrictive, I would call it the best solution to a problematic situation that we experienced first hand where others are just speculating about it.

I would go as far as to say that as good as all F16 class rules were honed that way. Afterall we did do alot of work on the class rules in the first 3 years of the class. I can still write up all the reasoning behind every class rule from memory. We also worked from the principle that when a proposed rule did not have a sound foundation or pressed reason to come into existance then it would not be accepted into the F16 class rules. As a result the F16 class are actually one of the least restrictive class rules about in the catamaran and dinghy scene. Ony A-class, 18HT's, and the Aussie 12, 14, 16 and 18 foot skiffs rule less on their boats. And that is the honest thruth.

If other builder gravitate away from the F16 class then it is because they are simply not up to the challenge of competing with the other F16 builders on a level playing field, both performance and technology wise.

It is most definately NOT because F16's are fragile, too restrictive or whatever. Arguing otherwise is not looking at the facts. Over the last 6 years the F16 class has proven that much in race results and by surviving perfectly well in the most rough conditions. The fact that relatively skilled but still very much amateur homebuilders can build F16's shows the lack of technological prowess of the builders shying away from the F16.

I own the very first purpose build F16, the prototype of the class, homebuild with the valuable help from other amateurs. The boat is still sailing without having experienced a single major breakage in 5 years and it weights 121.6 kg fully fitted. That is indeed overweight with respect to the 107 kg class minimum, but none of the other non-F16 builders like Hobie, Nacra, Boulogne, Swell, Mattia, etc can even offer a product that beats an overweight homebuild F16 like that.

The only exception here is Bimare of course as their Bim-16, Javelin-16 and X16.

Does this situation result in some F16 sailors having a chip on their shoulders. I guess it does. I don't respect the big boat builders who are still putting our boat that my 1974 Prindle 16 would beat in the weight department and there is no reason to be silent about that.

I don't think the F16 class was ever formed to be nice to other builder who put lipstick on old technology and call it the next big step forward in catamaran sailing. One reason why we formed was to show what could be done if some designers put their heads together and really tried. As such it was formed to challenge the other builders in producing a proper racing catamaran !

Wouter