Scooby,
Before I continue, I'm running around with a short fuse currently because of solving some design assignment that some retarded employee has managed to screw-up in no small way. It is taking me heaps of time and effort to get the dumb masses to understand. So if I seems short tempered then know that that is not because of you or becaus I disrespect you. It is just me.
Nope, Just classes that we have been told/or people believe have an issue currently.
So yes the F18 class is included, I understand. No class is copying more handicap finger pointing then that class currently.
It is actually the owners responsibility to have their boat measured and ensure it confirms to the class rules(reference all the protests at the latest F18 event) and that they do not change things that effect the SCHRS rating (Without getting the boat re-measured).
Standard practice, not a problem.
Afterall, this thread is talking about some peoples belief that the F16 is the same speed as the F18.
Actually, if more people believe otherwise then I'm fully prepared to accept a slower handicap then the F18's. It will only favour us F16's and we can excuse ourself from then onward that we F16 sailors have tried to make it as fair as possible to all other sailors. Personally I know that I will get a favourable rating if it is more then 1 % slower then the F18's.
What may happen is that the most efficient board possible that improves the rating will be used(as it is not limited in the class rules), so in the this case something around 4.50.
You guys are discussing this point with Wouter here. I have already analysed the curve that is related to the daggerboard handicap. I had done it over 3 years ago, same as with the luff lengths of the F16 jib.
The most optimal F16 board design ACCORDING to the SCHRS formula is :
0.14 (area) x 0.80 (length) (aspect ratio 4.57 dimensions 175 mm x 800 mm)
It results in a rating of 1.00614 = rounded to 1.01 = F18
The most low tech board (1988 desisgn) currently used is by the Taipan :
0.1595 (area) x 0.55 (length) (aspect ratio 1.89 dimensions 290 mm x 550 mm)
It results in a rating of 1.01836 = rounded to 1.02 = 1 % slower then F18 = current F16 handicap
Clearly the difference between a 18 year old daggerboard design and the most optimal is ONLY 0.01222 points or 1.2 %
I can tell your right now that that 0.14 x 0.8 board will be outperformed by both a 0.1875 x 0.75 board and a 0.16 x 0.8 board. Also the 0.14 x 0.8 board is very difficult to make to withstand the sailing loads put on it, its cord is too small and it both breaks easily and stalls easily.
In case people or wondering even a Taipan board that is being lengthned by ONLY 60 mm (just over 2 inches) is enough to give the F16's the F18 handicap.
So why don't you guys just give us the most efficient board specs you can find, we are pretty close to that performance already, even with our most low tech daggerboards. It is all just arguing about rounding off numbers downwards or upwards. Certainly not the kind of difference that earns serious consideration of F16 rule changes. There is simply not much in it.
Wouter
