No that doesn't sound fair indeed and that is actually a very good point. Especially when the names are reversed.

When (amateur husband/wife) team McDonald made an impression in the last day of the GC2009 (two 2nd's and a 1st place) then it was because of the lighter winds and when they did less so in the earlier days it was because the Viper is a better design alround (not because team McD. scored 5 dns's due to part issues as they also scored several 4th, 5th and 6th places in the rough stuff).

This sword cuts both way apparently.

I for one see as good as all the F16 members (and the class) argue that under the formula rules (be it F18 or F16) it is ALWAYS the crew that makes the real difference. Whether the result is good or bad. Also no-one here really believes that 20 kg is enough of a factor to differentiate between (weekend warrior) crews when compared to the much larger differences caused by varying crew skills (many minutes per race) and indeed crew weights. Rating systems like Texel seem to agree as they rate the heavier designs (incl. my own homebuild) only about a minute slower per hour. Largely irrelevant when the fleet also needs 10-15 minutes to finish over a course of 60 min. duration. Interestingly enough, beafy Viper CREWS did very well at the GC2009 too. If a 40+ kg difference between Viper crews is of no large consequence then why should a much smaller weight difference (20 kg) between different F16 boats be ?

I actually find that a few well known posters (several of them not even F16 owners/sailors) repeatedly go against this realistic and well balanced stance and argue in favour of the Viper design when its CREWS win and against the other makes when THEIR crews loose. Opposite results are regulary ignored or explained away (GC2009, GC2007 and GC2008 come to mind) and indeed conflicts between their own arguments (inconsistantcy) are left unexamined.

I also find that neither AHPC, Daniel, Brett or anyone else officially linked to the Viper F16 design is party to that. Yet, I also don't see them actively combatting such distractions either.

I fear this does allow for the larger public to throw the official parties on the same heap as the distractors; which is unfair too, but also understandable. Afterall, cui bono ?

A sad situation that I feel is best correct by all involved.

The F16 class has a bright future whereas alternatives are indeed struggling (F104, FX-one, iCat, Inter 17, M18, Javelin 16, etc). We either all make this work or hope that a better alternative somehow establishes itself after we have allowed the truly viable F16 class to be killed off for no good reason. I seriously doubt whether the latter option has any merit. I was closely involved in the creation and initial growth of the F16 class and understand how hard it is to get something like this off the ground. There may well not be an (better) alternative for many decades to come.

Therefor I invite every (official) party to make a stand in favour of the F16 class as indeed mr. Bundock does in his posting.

Wouter