Typically I try to keep the F16 rules as they were accepted by all in november 2002 and I'm quite succesful in that. However this time a very serious proposal has been entered. The reasoning behind is sound and we are at a point in the class that the acceptance of the proposed rule change doesn't affect any exiting F16. Watch this forum as we will give more details in a week or so.

In addition to this there is a proposal to delete jib rule 1.13.1 "The leech shall not be convex"

It has been pointed out that this rule serves no purpose in the current F16 setup. Arguably it is a leftover from the F18 rules we used in 2001 to draft the first set of F16 rules. The current area measurement methode includes all area despite the fact wether the leech is convex or concave. So the rule is not needed here. Also the F18's appear to use this rule to facilitate furling of the jib, which is required for safety. The F18 rules also ban fully battened jibs. F16 rules contain neither prohibation nor is it believed that a fully battened jib is a safety issue in strong winds. Afterall a fully battened jib sheet can be completely loose and the jib will just weathervane to the wind without flapping about. F20 class has already allowed these features. So the "jib leech shall not be convex" in the F16 rule is unlinked to any other rule or any structure inside the F16 rules. It is therefor useless and only impeding improved design rather than equalizing performance or limiting costs. In addition to this we see that fully battened jibs are getting into the F16 designs and a little convex leech is desirable for these jibs. Also the Taipan 4.9's are really helped by allow convex leeches as their foretriangle is relatively small and it is difficult to get the full F16 area in.

For this reason it is proposed to drop this rule 1.13.1 "The leech shall not be convex" altogether.

Please give any comments on it that you may feel are appropriet.


Last point :

Anybody got any other suggestion regarding the F16 rules that we can deal with at the same time as these proposals ?

Regards,

Wouter