Wouter,



one more.





> 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.

So that means the self tacking jib which goes down to the spinnaker boom is gone?



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



>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.



I did not say anything about class legality in EU. But, as you know, the license agreement for building a 4.9 clearly states that you can only call the boat "Taipan" and have the class sign in the sail if it complies to the class rules. To emphasize this is very important IMO, no matter how large the changes are, because otherwise sooner or later the itegrity of the class will be gone with many home builders calling their boat "Taipan" only because it is based on the plans. I am not saying your boat is like that or your intention is so, I only wanted to clarify that it is no more a Taipan 4.9 if you change the setup beyond the class rules.





>>...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 discussion is in my understanding about whether a spinnaker should be made class legal at all, whether it is good or bad for the class. There is NO indication that the designers/builders or the Australian class association support the F16HP in any way and the fact that a decision on the spinnaker effects the F16HP is purely coincidental. After the way Jim Boyers comments where handled I would be surprised about support from AHPC. But I might be totally wrong, maybe there is more going behind the curtain than I know?



"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.



I was not refering to you boat, I was talking about the Stealth and your answer.



>>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.



Did I say I consider it as unfair? I was just trying to understand the reason, now I know it. Thank you.



>>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.



> It sounds like you consider alterations like this as sacrelidge.



No, not at all. As long as the mods are within the class rules. Like with A Classes.



> 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 ?



Wouter, there is no big conspiracy here against your baby. People like me are just sceptical, just like you are regarding a lot of things.



> 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?"



That was no "argument", just a question. I am not arguing, I just do not understand why a design must be changed in so many ways (see John's list) if the improvement in performance is only 1%. That was all. And, btw, (as usual) you have not even tried to answer my question.



> 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 ?



I do not have to be ashamed of anything. I do not think there is a sound basis for F16HP, it is the answer to a question nobody asked. And I am saying this even if it should "hurt both classes".



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



My suggestion: Trust in the designers and their experience. Write down the intended mods, SAIL your boat as intended by the designers for 2 or 3 years, THEN revise the list. You will be surprised. I too had thought about and tried some modifications only to find out that the original solution is the best compromise. For how many hours have you sailed a Taipan now? And you think you can do better than Boyer/Goodall?







Have a nice weekend,

Gebhard.