I`ve been away from this forum for a long time, and chose an interesting time to catch up on some reading.
Just another perspective to look at things from : (BTW I am not a class member, or am I ? I sail a Mosquito with spi.. does that still qualify as an F16 ?)
When I approached Wouter as the (then) class chairman I was interested in having the Mosquito with spi accepted as an F16, after looking at our proposal he agreed, as it could do no harm. The boat`s ISAF rating works out at 1.13, so it`s around 10% slower (on paper) than a real F16 or F18. In real terms we can sometimes surprise the Hobie Tigers given the right conditions (10-15knots, and over 25knots) The reason for us wanting the Mozzie included was to benefit both parties : The F16 class could gain numbers at that early stage and have representation in Deepest Darkest Africa, while the Mosquito class had no place for spinnakers in it`s one-design rules, so we would then have a class to sail under. We attempted to get the Hobie 16`s to join us with spinnakers as we don`t have fancy boats in Africa, our ratings are similar with spinnakers, but that did not happen as Hobie worldwide decided they didn`t want to play with other kids that didn`t look like them. The Australian Mozzies quickly caught up in terms of numbers using spinnakers, mainly due to the inclusion of the boat as an F16, and Tim Sheppard`s efforts. As a result there are around 40 spinnaker-equipped Mosquito`s that regard the F16 class as a place where they belong, even if they are rated slower. However, where I sail you would not be too happy on a fully-optimised F16 most of the time, often we would prefer less sail area on the humble little Mozzie, as our sailing season corresponds with a windsurfing season in which you get the most use out of a 4sqm sail.
It would not bother me in the least if the F16 class decided that the Mozzie with spi no longer fitted their class rules and excluded us, as in S. Africa we have adopted the spi as standard and voted it into our class rules, which has effectively divided us from our Auzzie counterparts. It may affect them negatively as they will have no class to sail in.
What I`m getting at is that raising the min. weight would require the Mozzie sailors to carry more lead than that which is allowed in the class rules, effectively excluding the Mozzies from the F16 class. I do realise that attracting the big manufacturers would be more beneficial to the class than retaining a small number of boats that are not ideal as F16 boats, so if that happened I wouldn`t lose any sleep over it.
My real point is that when first hearing of the F16 concept it sounded brilliant - allowing different design boats with similar performance to race on a level-rating, first-in wins, basis. To me it would not really matter if the various designs varied in their ISAF ratings by one or two points, as that is too small a difference to count. I realise that others would prefer a more tightly controlled class with the boats being almost identical, so that the OD philosophy prevails. The sad thing about this is that there is no room for innovation in the design of the boats, the kind of innovation that sparked the creation of 'Altered'. What we have ended up with is a class of boats that almost are identical in design, as they are all being designed to the maximum limits of the box-rule. Of course it may be difficult to get these boats in at min. weight for some mass-production manufacturers, but it is still possible for the smaller builders with high quality control systems in place, such as VWM and Stealth Catamarans. It is also possible for a home-builder or anyone else to build a boat that conforms to the F16 rules, but may be smaller in some dimensions than the maximum allowed, for whatever reason the designer / builder chooses, and therefore is easy to be below the current min. weight. Raising the min. weight just excludes these possibilities.
I believe the original concept of the class should be kept in mind. It allowed existing boat designs to be included such as the Taipan, Mosquito, Stealth and even the Spitfire (which is seriously overweight and has a slightly bigger sail area than allowed under F16, however it`s ISAF rating is 1.04, making it very similar in performance.)
I can well understand Macca and Stephen Medwell`s point of view, however i can also understand those in defense of the current class rules remaining unaltered. Perhaps it would be wise to consider the Taipans, Stealths and Mosquitos that could form a fairly large percentage of the class worldwide, and can all be built under min. weight (or in the case of the Taipan, could have been until recently, and are only having issues regarding weight as a result of a change in builder).
Just my opinion on the matter, sorry it took so long.
The attached image is of the wind stats from a few days ago - definitely not F16 weather.. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />