Stephen,

Indeed I readily admit to first looking around to see what works over trying to reinvent the wheel.

Indeed, the F16 class took alot from several other classes and recombined it into a new concept. Again I readily and frequently admit to that.

Personally, I think this is the smartest way to go about it.

Personally, I'm even in favour of having the F16's class hold more events together with other classes like the F17's, FX-ones, Spitfires, etc. I have been vocal about that in the past. The basic reason being that this is the most enjoyable for everyone and again all the sailors can learn from eachother that way. Afterall, what is the real difference between these boats these days ? Even the handicaps (if you want to go down that route) are only a few points apart. An F16 at 101 (under SCHRS) or F104/F17 at 104 (under SCHRS). That is only a minute difference per 45 min. bouy race ?

I don't know, but would an A-cat/F16/F17 invitational at the Gulfport club be something that many would object to for 2009 ?

But this aside. The F16 class did do some pioneering. Afterall the Taipan class was absolutely dead set against any spinnaker addition or sail shape changes. Never did the Taipan class race "first in wins" between their sloops and cat-rigs.

There was indeed an Aussie version of the nacra Inter 17 before F16 was officially launched in 2001; but we (I) didn't use anything off that design. We did witness the launch of the first EU version of the Nacra Inter 17 that introduced a spi for singlehanding to the mainstream cat sailing and we (I) did pick up on that. The modifying the F16 to suit level racing between 1-up and 2-up racing however was only preceeded by the Dart 18 catamarans (1975) where the F16 extended to idea of a modern design with a spinnaker.

With respect to the wingmast. While we started the F16 officially in the spring of 2001 (before the F18 worlds that year), a small group had been on the case for "a better mousetrap" a while before that and even then there was no doubt that the wingmast was the way to go. As far as I know this Taipan F18 was basically a Taipan 5.7 that was modified with the help of a hacksaw and a very thick (heavy) walled mainbeam. Of course the Taipan 5.7 and Taipan 4.9 had featured the wingmast for many years by then. If anything the F16 mast usage is a direct extension of the Taipan 4.9 design, that did indeed inspire a large portion of the basic F16 setup.






Well, that is not really the way it was/is. If it had been that simple then there is no reason why the original Nacra Inter-17 should have been a smash hit world wide. Or why the M18 should have been a hot selling boat. Or indeed why the Taipan design itself would have pre-empted to F16 growing beyond the Taipan influence. Think about the Bim 16 too or the French BCM (Boulogne) Energy

All of the named boats (and many more) share some aspects with the F16 setup, but not a single one combined all of the important aspects into one setup and in such a well balanced form. At the time not a single alternative design dared to believe or even claim that such a setup could be rated the same or even close to the F18's; let alone race these directly to the line. No single boat did that and ALSO optimized versatility as defined by 1-up/2-up racing off the same performance. Of course we dared to start an open ruleset formula setup without the backing of any significant catamaran builder. And to top it off we didn't ask ANY membership fees while still growing the class internationally to the point were it is now.

In fact if you look at the whole picture then the F16 history is quite an interesting piece of reading. Indeed we took many things from other classes but in just as many cases we did things differently. One prime example is the fact that the F16 builders produce very lightweight boats for a retail price that sees 150 kg 16 and 17 footers struggle to achieve. Nobody believed we could pull this off, but we believed we could and we have put "the deed to the claim".

But indeed the biggest pioneering we did was fight against the disbelieving judgements that a small boat could be this good and convinced the sailing scene of the contrary. We stood on the shoulders of the Taipan 4.9 class, no doubt about that, but we progressed beyond their example and have indeed broken into new ground.


But having written down this "selfaggrandizement" I still believe that the cat classes and builders of the world should work more together and converge on a limited number of racings groups that serves all of the needs. In my opinion this means that the F16 class and sailors should aim to hook up with similar boat like the Spitfires, Taipans, Nacra 17's, FX-ones and, if it grows, the F104's.

Personally, I think the F104 class is completely redundant. It's class setup is basically a F16 with 25 kg added. The only reason to fix its number to a handicap of 104 is to exclude the F16's. The big boys are up to their old tricks again; creating internal competition that benefits no-one in the long run.

I hear that rumours are being circulated that F16 are fragile boats, but when I'm being asked what I think about the new nacra F17, then I'll say that I think it is a good boat that will give the onwer many years of enjoyment. If a party is looking for a more recreational oriented catamaran comparable to a F16 then I typically refer them to the Nacra 500.

My personal hope for the future is to see all these new 16 and 17 footers converge and work together to reinvigorate the catsailing scene. To attract more young people to the sport and to see all owners have more fun racing eachother on comparable boats.

That and the succesful creation of the F12 class, a real catamaran that is just as easy to rig and transport as a laser dinghy and inexpensive to own and maintain.

Wouter