Geert,
<br>
<br>Welcome, this forum is working out isn't. The usage of this new media would justify the HT extension just a bit, don't you think. But than again the number of views and posts would also qualify it as High Performance ! =)
<br>
<br>Okay, you comments are noted in the poll. Let me react to a few points you've raised.
<br>
<br>>>I'd like to see as little restrictions as possible, but still trying to avoid making the class too expensive.
<br>
<br>I'm with you here all the way and I think that all of the 10+ group members are.
<br>
<br>>>Beam: max. 2.5 mtr;
<br>>>Almost everywhere trailarable, and not a real limit.
<br>
<br>Noted, and agree ; especially with the last bit. If it was needed than the Isotope, BIM, Stealth and Taipan would have been wider than 2,24 ; 2,28 ; 2,29 ; 2,34 mtr. Raising mastheight from old height to 9 mtr. would only need 12,5 % ; 0 %; 7,1 % ; 5,9% extra width respectively resulting in : 2,52 ; 2,28 ;2,45 ; 2,48 mtr. This when crew is left at the often low intended crew weight. F16HP will however often be sailied with heavier crews of 150 kg's and more and THEY don't need this extra width.
<br>
<br>
<br>>> Carbon mast: allowed;
<br>For ease of righting, handling on the beach. About cost, I think if we set the minimum total weight not too low, anyone can still be competitive, as taipan's with aluminium mast's are already quite light. It just helps to get more different boats into the class. (also the ones who can't achieve the min. weight with an aluminium mast)
<br>
<br>
<br>Indeed, The heavier ones can buy in by going carbon. Personally I'm quite attracted by the propect of better sail control and depowering in combination with less pitching. F16HP will give a fast but controllable and smooth ride.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Spi: fixed max sail area between 17 and 21 m^2 (21 is max. according texel rating rule)
<br>I'd like also see a fixed luff length, to be calculated but:
<br>Make it as long as possible, just avoid the extremes, I'm a bit afraid of "masthead" spi's (more prone to breakage?), or say that the attachment of the spi must be at least 0.5 mtr down the top of the mast.
<br>
<br>
<br>I was pointed by I think John P. and Pieter Jan Dwarshuis to the fact that carbon mast could be easily made extra strong to take the extra genaker load. This would not help grandfather boats unless they get a carbon mast but it is masthead genakers are definately an option for the future. Personally I might rig my old P16 with a second hand spi and support my weakend old mast by two dyneema lines running from the sideshrouds pintles to the sailgroove at the hoist point. I'll be using a small diamter bungee cord to keep to line slack when putting on downhaul going upwind. This will almost completely cancel bending stresses and still not be in the way when trapezing etc. Isotope could do that too, the other grandfathered designs are well in the clear, I think.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Pole length: Like Formula18/Isaf rating/Texel rating: may not be longer than the longest distance between the fixing point on mast or mastbeam and the theoretical uttermost end of the boat, + 80 cm
<br>
<br>
<br>Yep, agreed and so do the others, some want to go shorter and that is ofcourse allowed under this rule.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Minimum weight (2-up): 105 or 110 kg (including spi)
<br>Although I like light boats, I think it's not reasonable to go lower than this; it would make all existing boats already obsolete.
<br>
<br>
<br>Ehh, not really for F16 HP takes Overall weight , including crew, into account. Having a heavier boat can be largely corrected by sailing with a lighter than 150 kg crew. It will not be perfect but than only Isotope is somewhat heavy. Both Phill and I think Boyer too and not to forget John P. have stated now and in the past that 16 ft. (timber) boats could reach 100 kg's safely. This will push for some light development in this direction though, I'll admit to that. I consider it a provision for the future. and Ofcourse the 83 % rule only works at exactly 99,25 kg's (say 100 kg) and not 110 kg.
<br>
<br>>>For example:
<br>The Taipan is about 105kg, add 6 kg for the spi (it won't be much less) and it's 111 kg.
<br>The Stealth: 109 kg + 6kg= 115 kg
<br>Bim16 110kg (measurement in Holland) + 6kg =116kg
<br>And these are already the lightest boats around.
<br>
<br>Well, your numbers are correct ofcourse BUT (sorry) we must allow a carbon mast on the Taipan 4.9 for example, ergo - 4 kg's (maurizio old forum 3 days ago). Than Phill has homemade full carbon rudderstocks, ergo another 1,0 kg's and rudders/boards ! again -4 kg's. Homemade Taipan carbon boom and genaker pole, - 2 kg, dyneema trapeze wires and pole wires (work great on my boat), - 2 kg and we're already at -13,0 kg's So a F16 HP taipan 4.9 of your 111 kg's - 13kg = 98 kg's. Ohh, ... ehh, now lets say I overestimated by 2 kg's ... and Hoppa 100 kg's (Teasing a bit, sorry =) )
<br>
<br>Hell, I know a homebuilder that weighted the base sheets of ply before buying and selected the lightest ones and won a 2.4 kg's that way !
<br>
<br>I don't know about how far the BIM can go or the Stealth because I know the Taipan much better, But if Petrucci builds A-cats at 75 kg's than he must be able to produce his Bim at the advertized weight of 95 kg's even though the 110 kg's found at Texel is without a doubt correct.
<br>
<br>My point is that 100 kg's is "achieveable by practical means" as John P. himself put it. (e-mail or post, I forgot).
<br>
<br>But you do have a point. Taipan is base at 102 (class rules) and can kept at that weight by leaving class complience by going carbon mast and boom when adding a gen. of 6 kg's
<br>
<br>Still I think that the transition to 100 kg's will take a few years and that is enough time for the class and grandfathered boats to slowly adjust to this weight.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Maximum length: 5.03m (this just includes the stealth)
<br>
<br>Yes, I'm strongly apposed to that, Doing this will mean that all new boats will be build to 5,029 mtr. Thus giving the other grandfathered an extra hit lengthwise and genakerslot wise and the already were at 4,95 mtr. I must remain as neutral as possible in these F16HP discussions but I really want to keep the max = 5 mtr + margin of building error and dispensate the Stealth design for its non complience to the length rule under the condition that any newly designed stealth hull is 5 mtr or less.
<br>
<br>>> Sail area:
<br>For what kind of calculating for the Jib; I'll leave it up to you, but if you want to calculate, I think it's better to take the (max) luff lengths for main and jib, and not set a max mast length.
<br>I also like the idea to take a "rated" sail area; this also limits the need for a very high aspect-ratio sail (and thus a very long mast)
<br>This formula's are the same in Isaf and Texel rating, and are public, so everyone can see what the effects are.
<br>
<br>Yes, I'm investigating ISAF for this may rate daggerboards and genaker size.
<br>
<br>Greetings,
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br>
<br>Geert
<br>
<br><br><br>