Steward.
<br>
<br>Going back in September to do some more skiff sailing (also 49-er) in Greece. I've got a dedicated and almost fanatical crew; just what you want on a skiff hey.
<br>
<br>Anyway with respect to the points you raise.
<br>
<br>>I would prefer to see as few restrictions as possible..
<br>
<br>This is also the intend of the F16 HT group, however I think that the views differ on what is poossible and what isn't. Phill is right in his comment that this is intended to start a viable class. This will surely limit All-Out High Tech approach. That approach is left to the truelly Open class. Why deregulated everything but still fix a length of 16 foot ? Wouldn't 20 foot and light weight be even more high tech (M20 ?). Where must the boundery be drawn. It is also the intend of the F16 HT to present a good alternative to the other classes with respect to money. The BIM 16 can in EU be bought for 40 % of a new F18 and both boats perform the same ! This is also High Tech, getting the maximum out of a limited boxrule including cost to performance ratio.
<br>
<br>>Max length
<br>
<br>This is a necessacity to be able to form a class of equally performing boats. Even the small boat development classes of all time 18 foot skiffs and A-cats have opted for a few restrictions. This is also done to stimulate development. Personally I believe that Technology developped faster when more people are capable of participating. No -restrictions will stiffle small improvements for the big bucks guys will just overpower all smaller improvements by entering with a all carbon and disposable boat.
<br>
<br>
<br>> max width
<br>
<br>Is NOT regulated. Boat can be a wide as you want too as long as it is trailorable. The 16 foot boats will never reach this 2,55 meter width however for this would imply more power in the boat that the 16 foot hull length can ever prevent from pitchpoling. The optimal ratio between width and length probably is less. Otherwise the Taipan and Bim would have been made wider.
<br>
<br>> then either max mast height
<br>
<br>This is also NOT regulated. Same reasoning as with boat width. Ratio sailarea to mastlength is fixed via the rated sailarea formula which gives a predicting of truelly developped sailpower. All boats will therefor have the same thrust. Some may devellop this more efficiently than others. There is room for experimenting and development here.
<br>
<br>> or max luff length.
<br>
<br>Is NOT regulated. Reasoning as point above. Only genaker luff may be regulated but thuis point is still open for debate.
<br>
<br>>> or possibly max sail area..
<br>
<br>Is rgulated by ratio, see two points above.
<br>
<br>> allow single or multiple crews but if one nominates as a single (or double) the regatta must be sailed as that..
<br>
<br>I'm a little confused but think this is implemented as such in the (draft) rules we have right now. F16 HT regulated both 1-up as 2-up sailing and I feel the boat is too small for a crew of three.
<br>
<br>>>as for genacker. just rate the max luff length.
<br>
<br>Do you mean without specifying the maximum area ? What would you feel is a good lufflength to fix ?
<br>
<br>> I believe the 100 kg min is too high.. Firstly you wish a High Tech class then you suggest it should heavy enough to encourage be lowish tech construction.
<br>
<br>> Apart from the A-cat class and a few 13 to 14 foot cats, no cat has gone under 100 Kg's. Taking the A-cat as a lead :
<br>
<br>A-cat weight = 75 kg's
<br>Genaker setup = 6,5 kg's
<br>jib setup = 4,5 kg's
<br>
<br>minimum weight F16 HT without reinforcements = 86 kg's. An A-cat with a jib and genaker and double trapeze will be likely to break in the heavier airs, so I think that ONLY 14 kg's of reinforcements is not much to make it strong enough in 6 beaufort (25 knots) which will be the maximum windstrength for F16 HT races. I agree with Phill here, 100 kg's is needed and is already difficult to achive. In theory we could have gone a little lower say 95 kg's but then we would have no grandfather boats around which to start the class at all. Now, when no class than no-one will develop the 95 kg's F16 HT boat at all. So what is wisedom, we opted for the 100 kg's as a compromise, it is a few kg's lighter than the grandfather boats are and not to light to make them immediatly uncompetitive. And ofcourse 100 kg's is just about what can be reach by timber homebuilding.
<br>
<br>>. Seems a tad od.. Perhaps the class should be F16 MT where M is moderate ..
<br>
<br>Maybe, Still Steward I think that alot of your points are in fact left open in the F16 HT so it mght deserve the HT extention again. Even the 18 foot skiffs and A-cats are regulated to the same degree so it can;t be all bad, right ?
<br>
<br>>>If someone wishes to build a nomex carbon hull with M18 style rig then I would suggest its what we should allow..
<br>
<br>These will be one of boats just like the supercats. They are to extreme to create their own class. No class , means no buyers, no buyers means no development. This is the paradox that we are trying to overcome in the F16 HT. It may not be the ebst setup but it may well be the best setup we've got right now. Without it we keep getting the 150 kg's inter 17 and FX-one and 180 kg F18. The F16 HT will outsail these, isn't that pretty High Tech already for a smaller 16 foot boat !!
<br>
<br>>>What about a solid wing mast with a genacker? It would be HT surely.. Would this be legal?
<br>
<br>Probably not but we're still discussing it. Pesonally I feel that solid wingmasts are for millionairs and there are not enough sailing millionaires that are interested in small cats to base a class upon.
<br>
<br>But thanks for your reply Steward, I hope to see a reply on my comments of you.
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br>
<br>
<br><br><br>
