In order :
<br>
<br>Length : I'm happy with mast to sailarea dependency formula as used in measurement system. My preference to genaker pole Pole length : Texel/FFV/ISAF rule of 0,8 meter passed bows, But than again I'm in a Texel area. Width of boat ; everything goes as long it is trailorable horinzontally all over the world = max 2.55 meters (?)
<br>
<br>min rigged weight: I choose the phychological boundery of 100 kg's ready to sail 2-up. Still minimal rigged weight is of not much important as equality is fixed by formula in which weight is a variable. As long as the performance prediction is equal to the F18 class. The solo platform will come in a little lighter. Why a minimum weight at all, to garantee thatolder boats stay competitive and to give some garantee of constructial robustness. Furthermore I have let myself be inspired by the fact that this weight limit can be reach by building in Timber. This will add to the low entry into the class.
<br>
<br>, jib size: I would like to see a minimum size and a maximum size
<br>
<br>, rated mainsail area : All for it
<br>
<br>gennaker luff max length: Need more thinking time
<br>
<br>gennaker max size : For now just fix it at 17 sq. mtr.
<br>
<br>, pole length past the bows (as per texel ratings, I think 800mm)
<br>
<br>
<br>>My preference would also be mast material.
<br>I'd like to avoid carbon masts because of relative cost to aluminium.
<br>>Just my opinion- very interested to what others think.
<br>
<br>I'm in doubt. The HT in F16 HT stands for High Tech. Can we honestly outlaw carbon masts then ? Aluminium is much cheaper that is true. We might even need Carbon mast to get the boats down to 100 kg's sail ready weight. On the other hand I've heard Boyer say that the aluminium mast on a Taipan 4.9 is only marginally lighter than a carbon one. I don't know how true this is.
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br>
<br><br><br>