>>We believe we can reach the 100 kgs weight for production stealths,
<br>
<br>This is great news ! I was a little bit anxious about the stealths weight. But this settles it I think. All the boats including genaker gear are between 100 kg's and 110kg's so I see no reason now to set a different minimum weight than 100 kg's. What do you think Geert ? Does this settle out discussion ?
<br>
<br>It was also assured to me that a homebuild Taipan could be build to 100 kg when modified here and there to take a carbon mast, carbon genaker pole and carbon beams. For a homebuilder all do-able. The carbon mast must be ordered ofcourse lets say that a blank carbo section = 2700 as phill indicated than going carbon will put 2700 - 1000 (alu) = 1700,- (NFL) = about us$700,- on the price of a boat. The sails etc will be different but just as cheap/expensive. So I think that is is payable too.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>We seam to be moving towards agreement on most topics, to summarise it would appear that the framework will be something like this:
<br>
<br>Yes, I think so too. Although I would like to run a few things passed you all.
<br>
<br>Max length 5.00 m (I agree)
<br>Max beam 2.5 m (F18 has 2,60 as max, more width more power in heavy air, do or don't?)
<br>Max mast length 9.00 (I agree)
<br>Min weight 100 kgs (Ohh yes, I agree)
<br>Max spin 17 m (18sq m???) (I like to move up to 83 % of 21 sq.mtr. = 17,5 rounded of, Do or Don't guys)
<br>Max draw height on kite ? 8.5 m ?? (I want to have same aspect ratio as F18, means less draw)
<br>
<br>Rated main area (as per Wouters calcs (I agree, ofcourse)
<br>Rated jib area (see above) (I agree again)
<br>
<br>
<br>>>>Boats to rate the same as F18 (I think we need to pick a rating system to compare its a bit too open to make it compare on all systems,
<br>
<br>
<br>I'm with you here, personally I like to opt for ISAF system. Name ISAF is better known in the world and allying ourself to this system will give us more credit and maybe help in getting support and recognition by ISAF in the future. I also think it is more fair to the F18's
<br>
<br>
<br>>>I vote we use texel this allows us 18sqm spin with no penalty over 17sq m it also allows any length of daggerboard
<br>
<br>I meet you halveway 17,5 sq.mtr. for I can argument mathem,atically that size is fair to the F18's. 18 sq.mtr. will look like we're trying to beat them by sneaky use of a loophole in a handicap system. Personally I'm all for more power and going faster but this is one thing again that could hamper the class.
<br>
<br>>>whereas for ISAF you must put in the length and area for the boards.
<br>
<br>True but these and all other non conformaties are corrected out in the jib area. So this is not really a big problem. with big boards you'll only loose 0,5 jib area or so 1/9 of max. that can be had on a F16HT.
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br><br>