Gebhard,



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



Not is not gone, however the dimesions of the jib are within the max dimension as given in the rules such as 5,1 luff length. The part of the rule that could make it NON compliant is that the jib tack may not be below the bridle split. I lead it past this point to be able to sheet the jib from the forebeam. However, for T4.9 races I could slight the jib up past the bridles and sheet it off the trampoline again. So If I where to have the complaint length of mast than it could easily restore it into full complaint mode. Now I'm going to test sail it and work out the optimal settings with the higher mast (about 8,75 mtr instead of 8,5 mtr.) Then I'll decide wether I keep it or not. If or when An active T4.9 fleet in EU gets developed I'll be sure that pick up a saw and cut of that 0,25 mtr. extra mastsection.



So this was my reason to only name the mast as true non complaince for making that complaint takes some effort. But I admit that this is a question of how to look at things. So if the mast is 8,5 mtr. than Yes in F16 HP mode my boat will not be a Taipan 4.9 due to this jib. And in T4.9 mode (same Jib higher attached) my boat will be complaint.



I hope this clears things up.





>>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.





I that case please advice me on what Taipan EU regards a good name for my boat. I know the carbon masted Taipan was called a Euro Taipan, maybe Taipan F16 or F16 Taipan would be acceptable. I would very much appreciated if you could help me out on this. I mean calling is Wouter F16 doesn't really place the credits where the credits are due (AHPC) either.



Be adviced that I will request a Texel rating for my boat under that name.





>>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?





We'll we're not the secret service here and I think that I indicated in my rephrasing that the rules are could become more similar depending on the outcome of the vote. I didn't say that this was directly linked to the F16 HP class.



About how Jim Boyers comment where handled, I must say that I don't see any problems here. He request the suspension of the weight equalisation rule and he got that. We informed about further points of discussion and he replied that he was content with it.



I say this was a very respectable way of "handling his comments" as you say and I again regret the suggestion you feed by this insinuation.





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



Well, I think Kirt has answered that one best. No need to contribute. Thanks Kirt.





>>>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.





Sorry I misunderstood than, your choice of words gave me the impression that you were trying to say something else. Obviously my mistake, sorry.





> 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.





You are not just sceptical. If you are you would hav chosen different sentences and not the implying ones as :"After the way Jim Boyers comments where handled " and "maybe there is more going behind the curtain than I know? "



You are working towards an endresult and this is not the same as just informing yourself of the mods I make on my ...?



So lets be on a level here.





>>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.





And you continue at it.



'In so many ways" = suggestive

Stealth R and Stealth F16 are very similar.



and why do we sway from my ... to the Stealth and back.



(look a suggestive argument from my side. two can play this game)



>>And, btw, (as usual) you have not even tried to answer my question.



But you're not really trying to say anything special with this, are you ? You're just asking, right ?





>>.... I do not think there is a sound basis for F16HP, it is the answer to a question nobody asked. ....



And here we have your (hidden) agenda ! I'm sure thatyou know exactly what everybody everywhere is asking. (Im still continueing in my example that two can play this game.)



What I do want to say about this comment is that I find it remarkable that this class has been able to make this progress (Stealth F16, low budget offers for Stealth and BIM, and what not more) in only 7 months for an "answer to a question nobody asked"



Now my question to you is why not participate in this when this is so clearly in favour of the Taipans ? Why even work against this class ? Why are you so defensive about the Taipan design? Why not work with us, I'm sure that the whole group including the builders would really like you to participate and thus strengthen both our initiatives. Our class and you Taipan EU. Divided we fail and united we can win a part of the cat scene and present a really good alternative to the sailing public.



Now, I have had several people inquire about the F16 HP class and Taipans in particular and I remain perfectly objective but this conflict we seems to loose ourself in each time makes it considerable harder. Especially when it is public like this.



Now, I offer my hand and hope you will accept it and work together to our mutual benefit.



Wouter