Gebhard,



Let me rephrase than.



My boat will be an F16HP one-off heavily based on the Taipan 4.9 design. The only feature that don't make it a class legal T4.9 is that I'm going to sail with a slightly higher mast to let the platform take the genaker (bag) better.



I do also rearrange the block setup and some other small stuff like cleats but all this is class legal.



The rest is all per plans and standard. Now I am sure that everybody want to reads to much into this but any designer will know that does not improve performance by any significant amount, it merely saves my back a little when ducking under the boom to tack. Maybe I save some 2 seconds per tack and jibe, even so then it only accounts for some 0,33 % in time. You at your weight 120 kg crewweight have alot bigger advantage on me than this, so what is fair, Gebhard ?



About class legal :

You're right my F16 HP based on a taipan 4.9 isn't class legal. Now, I'm sorry to say this but their aren't any T4.9 class races in the EU so I don't think I miss out on alot. And when there are than it will only take a shorter mast section to make me legal again. A good saw will do the trick.



>>I am sure the impression you leave is not intentional, but the topics that the T4.9 AGM at the next Nationals will discuss have NOTHING to do with F16HP.





They have indeed nothing to do with the F16 HP, they are merely class issues like a choice on a genaker size for open class racing etc. So you're right about this. So let me rephrase this :



The grandfathered designs are becoming more and more similar to the F16 HP class setp depending on the outcome of some class meetings and builder design choices. Stealth is already a pure F16, Bim has indicated that they will deliver the BIM 16 1-up to F16 specs when requested and at the next Taipan 4.9 AGM a discussion on the genaker size will be held about which of two sized to choose for open class racing. The sizes involved are 21 and 17,5 sq. mtr. if I remember it correctly. Is this true ?. I guess that entering a T4.9 in a open class event is sort the same as entering a T4.9 in a F16 HP race.



I'm sure that this describtion replaces my earlier statement fully and more accurately.





"These boats still rate within 1 % or so from the F16's and this difference can only be shown by a very capable crew. "

If this is so, then why does a proven design need any changes?



Personal changes because I like sailing the boat with this block / cleat setup better and the mast because I want some more mast rake flexibility when genakering without pulling block on block. The higher boom helps a bit in tacking and jibing. Thats it.



>>Your T4.9: If the mast is higher, it is not a Taipan 4.9 anymore. If the luff length of your sail is T 4.9 class legal, what do you need a longer mast for?



I refer to my earlier comment. Let me ask a counter question. Why do you think that this is unfair.



>>You as the creator of the class do not aid in building confidence in the class if you, on the one hand, claim that the current boats (bim 16, Stealth, T4.9) are perfect for the class and that special modifications only make a 1% difference, on the other hand, you invest a lot of work, thought and money to alter one of the praised designs? Why don't you just sail "as is", THAT would help the class.





Gebhart, really !! I'll sail in the F16 with a T4.9 with barely noticable mods apart form the genaker setup ofcourse. My jib will actually be 0,5 sq. mtr. smaller than the standard T4.9 jib. Is this confidence in the grandfathered design performance or what ?



And than "Argument" which is suggestive at best and I told you before what I invest so also you know better.



" you invest a lot of work, thought and money to alter one of the praised designs? "



Alot of work yes, is this a crime. Does this somehow proof I have a hidden agenda ? Does it make my boat faster ?



Thought ? same argument; why may I not think about the setup and change it into what I like in terms of handling. Some crews let the crew handle the mainssheet (centre sheeting) some like the skipper to handle it (rear beam sheeting). If AHPC offers these as options than why may I not rearrange some stuff ? I think we are getting into double standards here.



It sounds like you consider alterations like this as sacrelidge. Some more A-class thinking won't harm.



Money, well I can assure you that I'm definately not investmenting more money in altering this design than I would transfer when I buy the design. And I think it is wise for us both to leave it at this.



Now what I don;t understand is why people are starting a inquisition on this new class. Are the concepts presented so dangerous to the establishment. Is what is said here such a big thread to the classes involved ? Is a calcualted offset of 1 % (in grandfather to pure F16) when crews are carbon copies really something to worry when in the same one-design classes the differences in crew weight 110 kg to 145 kg account for a couple of times more difference than that same 1 %.



Now I do really respect you gebhard and what you've done for Taipan EU but I wish you would use more substantial arguments than these suggest arguments like :"If this is so, then why does a proven design need any changes?"



You are harming both classes with this and for what, for a percieved difference that won't be noticable in real life rcing where fleet come at far bigger time differences than what we are talking about here. Dont you think that this is a bit of a shame ?



Let me summerize



We both know the design doesn't "NEED" these changes, but my way of sailing catamarans 'PREFERS" them.





Good sailing Gebhard



Wouter