Matt,

I think this is hard to say.

We may find that sails compliant to the proposed rules are F16 compliant but from the rules themselfs this may not be garanteed.

F16 rules on the Mainsail are :

max area including mast = 15.0 sq. mtr
max luff length = 8.10 mtr. (when downhauled)

So F16 class rules will not easily disallow a given mainsail design.

However, it may be possible that the proposed rules still allow a flap at the bottom of the Taipan sail which puts its total area passed 15.0 sq. mtr. Rolf made a rought estimate of the area but did he envision all the possible ways to maximize the mainsail area ? Maybe there are other loop holes that do conflict with either F16 rule. The limits on width and leech/foot lengths do not in themselfs limit the total area of the sail to max 15.0 mtr.

I think the proposed class rules do limit the max luff length to the same level as the F16 rules have set it. So no problem there.


Additionally, the issue raised by Paul is that the much more detailed Taipan rules as proposed may in fact conflict with existing (or future) F16 mainsail designs of some sailmakers. In effect these sailmakes will always have to check their designs against two different sets of rules when the performance determining features are identical. I have understood this to refer to a situation where the limits are needlessly confusing for sailmakers.


The way I understand it is that only two situations can result from the proposed rules :

-1- The F16 sails are not necessarily Taipan compliant
-2- The Taipan sails are not necessarily F16 compliant

Either way the sailmakers are pretty much required to develop two different mainsail designs for effectively the same mast section and comparable boats.

I share the opinion that this is not really handy to both sailmakers and sailors. It can only lead to higher prices (as more work is involved) for zero differences in performance. Also it will hamper the second hand market in these items.


Wouter