In commenting on various post I will switch roles from time to time. Some comment I make as a chairman of the F16 class and others as a private F16 sailor. Yet others again as a proxy for Greg Goodall as he is unable to reply himself with current preparation for the F18 worlds that is on within a week or so.

I will denote my role by naming it between accolades.


>>There is nothing wrong with the rules as they stand…if you start making needless changes… and narrowing the rules that are already in place, the class appears to be unstable from the outside.


{as proxy Greg Goodall} These changes are intended to prevent what happened in the A-cat class where the introduction of various new stuff raised the price of the A-cat drastically. At it stands now the price of carbon beams add a significant portion to the basic price. 2000 Aus dollar per set is normal; alu beams are about 1/10. Therefor carbon beams alone account for some 10 - 13 % of the total price. It is not that these carbon beams are so much faster but the perception that seems to come along with using carbon beams that everybody needs them to be competitive. It is this that is escalating the cost of a A-cat. Right now the A-cat is prized significantly higher than the F16 while featuring 2 less sails and much related hardware.

The F16 using glued in beams have an added drawback with respect to the A-cat and that A-cat just fit inside the sea containers fully assembled. F16's simply do not. It is beyond acceptable to ship a fully assembled F16 at 2.5 mtr width. Greg believes this both a impediment to class growth through reduced sales and problems getting boats to turn-up to international events in the future. Free charter boat at big international events a la Hobie 16 is not an option in the F16 class.

(as a private F16 sailor)

I couldn;t care less about carbon beams. I think them to be expensive parts without significant gain. I found that with a spinnaker the sailing is now more then ever determined by sailing skill & well thought out layout and not so much be perfect trim or a perfect design.

I do see, as an organisor, big problems holding international events when a significant portion of the platforms have permanently fixed beams. It will also mean that builders can only supply local area's. This will be a huge problem in both the USA and EU and effectively could cut AHPC off from the international market as their growth is completely outside of Australia. This is a consideration that goes to the core of the F16 class. I personally don't care for a handfull of ultimate F16's when compared to large fleets of sub-ultimate F16's. Remember we changed our name to High Performance from High Tech some time ago just to reflect this. Ultimate sailor should go to F18HT and A-cat classes. Ultimate balance sailors should go to the F16. I am of the firm believe that the last approach is the winner.

I personally have no problem sailing against a carbon masted and glued in carbon beamed F16 as I know already from F18 sailing that skill wins out every time. I am, however, often surprised how many sailors are staring themselfs blind on details. It is this aspect of human nature that we need to think carefully about when deciding on carbon beams and we need to think about the trade-off between class growth and succes when deciding on permanently fitted beams.

I think these two to be two different proposals and the voting with reflect this.

Nothing of this, in my opinion, signals an unstable class setup. Particulary as no-one at this time is sailing with either carbon beams or glued-in beams at this time. So the rule can be changed now without spiking anyboby.


>>That has the potential to alienate a lot more people than the idea that we are all going to be beaten by a “rich guy” with a “super boat”.


(Private sailor) Why would anybody be alienated by it ? What is the reason that they would be when the rule spikes no-one and is possibly accepted before such beams are introduced to the class. Do we really believe that large numbers of sailors are attracted to the F16 class because they can have carbon beams in this class ?


>>No one will want to get involved in home building an F-16 when trying to build a compliant boat becomes like shooting at a moving target. The few advantages a homebuilder might have (like making their own carbon beams and gluing them in) to find an equal footing with a professionally designed and manufactured boat is eroded away.


(private sailor) I think this to be an overstated consideration. Making high quality carbon beams suited for use as a beam is beyond the standard home-builder. Not even AHPC and other builders are CONSIDERING producing these in house when the rule allows carbon beams. Even Phill Brander as our most respected homebuilder is not in favour of homebuilding carbon beams. Carbon booms etc are easily enough homebuild. Carbon beams are less so.

The option we're looking at is : Homebuilder gets alu beams JUST LIKE the professionally build F16's and be equal for low cost and great ease or he has to decide to be less than equal or order carbon beams commercially.

I think limiting all to alu beams is a consideration IN FAVOUR of homebuilders.


>>With all due respect… A.H.P.C.’s potential shipping problem


It is also Stealth, Blade USA and Blade EU problem. These companies have to ship platforms to far away clients as well.


>>>(if…a big if… they chose to build an optimized fixed carbon beamed F-16 in the future)


They seriously don't want to produce a fixed carbon beamed F16 as they feel that the market will not accept such a design because of the cost. Hence the proposal.


>>is not the burden of the F-16 class to resolve.


The burden for the F16 class to resolve is wether we risk an A-cat cost expansion to happen in the F16 class or prevent it while we still can.


>>It is a marketing decision that is for them to evaluate, and determine if such a produce can be built and shipped at a profit.


They have indicated that they think that they can not. I would like to add to this that it is in the interest of the F16 class to keep 3 builders on board.


>>I think we would all be better sailors if we spent a lot more time on the water honing our skills and a lot less time feeding this paranoia of being cheated out of first place by some “rich guy”.


I personally fully agree with that but I also understand from my dealings with other sailors that a significant portion of the sailors do not educate themselfs to this mindset. Are will willing to risk this ?

The answer to this last question is something that we all must decide for ourselfs and must be reflected in your vote on both proposals.

I will do the same with my alloted votes.


Regards,

Wouter