Actually, the vast bulk of the FX-one rig is F16 compliant. The mast and mainsail are F16 compliant in all respects. It is only the jib that is 0.45 sq. mtr too large (15%) in area, its luff length and leech length are full compliant again.

Basically, Hobie could just use the standard FX-one rig and just cut the jib a little smaller (or use the smal crew F18 version of their F18's jib designs). Making the rig F16 compliant is therefor no biggy at all. You could do it right now to any existing FX-one byt recutting the jib.

It was one hidden feature of the F16 rules that we included in the F16 rule set back in 2001. Same applies to the Inter-17 with the exception of the US I-17R's. The latter have very large mainsails that were too far beyond what was practical on an F16.

Additionally, the FX-one hull is not even a foot longer then the F16 hull. only 9 to 10 inches. The biggest difference between the FX-ones and F16 has always been the overall weight (FX being significantly heavier but being compliant that way) and the fitting out of the platform. The superwing alu mast on F16's is just so much better then the very stiff cut-short Tiger F18 mast they use on the FX-ones.

While I don't agree with their stance I do understand their reluctance to enter the F16 segment. What I don't understand is the creation of the icat without making it meaningfully different. Is competition between the two classes so much to be preferred then the competition inside the F16 class ? I don't see why that would be beneficial to Hobie.

Wouter