HJS,

Like Stewart says, it is a straight-up engineering problem.

I don't want to play this on the man here, but Greg is in error here.

All I can add is that I hold a engineering degree in Mechanical, Maritime (Naval) and Materials engineering so this was standard stuff during my education. I have done such analyses many times.





I've already run all the numbers and build the prototype F16 remember. I widened my boat to F16 specs and needed to know how that was done best. I made these calculations about 9 years ago and my boat is still sailing and has the same bow flexing as a nacra F18 (which was popular at the time) when layed up for a stiffness test. My beams are no where the size of the Nacra F18. I used the superwing section as a mainbeam and a 80x2 round tube as the rear beam. I was also closely involved with the beams that were specially designed for the F16 boats and are now featured on the Aussie Blade F16 and Falcon F16.

Therefore I think I have already matched my statements with a boat(s) actually build (along the lines of "all my theories"). My homebuild is here as well as other fruits of my engineering and the F16 class is an international fact. So what have you to show for yourself ?

Besides, Macca is the guy who is on about FASTER F16's I'm just saying that F16 beams can be significantly smaller then a F18 while maintaining identical flexing on the water relative to an F18. Since we sail in the same wave conditions I feel that is sufficient criterium for the F16's. The Viper (with F18 beams) is said to be incredibally stiff and my models do indeed confirm that. Personally, I feel that that is also an issue of diminishing returns.

Please note that all F16 builds use smaller beams then the F18's with AHPC being the only exception; I feel validated by that fact as well. It "sort of suggests" that "my theories" have been peer-reviewed.

Regards,

Wouter