The proposal is now official and here it is. Please lets discuss the merits and personal views on this matter and than have the vote in a weeks time or so.


***********************************************

Proposal to adjustments of Formula 16 Rules

Concerns : A new rule.
By AHPC ; Greg Goodall
Date 10 june 2004


Dear Formula 16 class,

As discussed by phone, I hereby submit the official request to create a new rule in de Formula 16 ruleset. In de text below you’ll find the reasoning behind the proposal and the expected benefits. With this I hope the request is complete and sufficient to start the procedure linked to rule changes.

With kind regards,

Greg Goodall


MD Australian High Performance Catamarans


Part 1


Subject : Introduction of new rule in segment 1.2 - Platform Dimensions


Proposed wording of rule :

“The hulls, beams and trampoline shall not be permanently fixed to one-another.”


Explanation ;

It must be possible to fully disassemble the hulls, beams and trampolone from one another to form a more convient sized package suited for shipment using standard sized sea containers and standard long haul trucking.

Reason / benefits :

The reasons behind this added rule are three-fold :

1. International transport by sea containers is the most used transport to events held overseas and delivery to customers the world over. Standard sea containers are 8 feet wide = 2.44 mtr with a maximum inner width of 7’ 8” = 2.34 mtr. The height of the sea containers is similar. These containers will therefor not allow assembled Formula 16 platforms (2.5 mtr overall width) to be transported. Transport by truck is also limited to similar dimensions.

2. In the case of shipping catamarans, the transport costs are determined mainly by how easily a package can be handled by the shipper as the F16 overall weight is often below the bottom threshold. The overall length and the enclosed volume of the shipped package are therfor the main cost increasing factors. A fully assembled platform will therefor be significantly more expensive to transport than a dissambled one. It is also far easier to box in an dissambled platform to protect it from damage.


Both reasons 1 and 2 are very important for future attendence to international Formula 16 events and to stimulate boat sales and class growth.


3. Permanently fixed beams come almost exclusively in the shape of glued in carbon beams. The use of carbon beams without glueing them in is of no particular interest from a technical point of view as weight savings and increased stiffness are marginal. It is my experience in the A-cat class is that the use of glued in carbon beams significantly drives up the cost of a new platform for a very limited gain in performance. I estimate that the difference between the stiffer platforms using permanently fixed beams and non-permanently fixed beams is mostly found on the downwind legs and mounts up to several seconds per normal sized leg. This small gain will convince the top sailor to decide for glued in carbon beams and by their example create a situation were it is perceived that all boats must have glued in carbon beams. It is my opinion that this is detrimental to the Formula 16 class as it makes the boats unnecessary expensive and it creates the problems as discussed in point 1 and 2. I do not think that the gains in performance are needed as we mostly compare ourself to the Formula 18 class who have gone one step further and have banned carbon beams althogether.



Part 2 : Full banning of carbon beams.

Subject : Introduction of new rule in segment 1.2 - Platform Dimensions

Proposed wording of rule :

“The beams shall be made of an alumimium alloy.”

The reason being that the best sailors are also the ones to most likely invest heavily in their platforms and thus to purchase carbon beams. These sailors will win due to the superior skill but quickly the class will view the carbon beams as contributing to the result as well and thus create a situation again where it is perceived that all boats must have carbon beams. This will add alot of cost to the platforms and be detrimental to the growth of the F16 class.

At this time alumimium beams are still 10 times cheaper than carbon beams and they are the most easily acquired beams for homebuilders as well.


************************************


I think Stewart has a thing or two to say about this proposal. And probably some others as well. So lets have the discussion and see if we can agree on an outcome or even a better proposal

Wouter