I make the following comments as a private F16 sailor only, Be free to completely disagree with me and even say so out loud. I'll welcome that even.

Still, I do have some info and experiences left over from my past involvements that are pretty significant.

First Pauls points :



Choosing the tipweight last time was a careful balancing act. I won't go into detail now but I can assure everybody here that nothing like 30 % weight can be saved on the mast. Currently the tipweight rule allows carbon masts that weight as little as 13 kg overall. For our designs this is very effective. It allows the boat to be right singlehandedly by very light skippers in all conditions and isn't pushing the limits of engineering too much. Reducing the weight of the mast by another 2 or 3 kg is not going to make a significant difference in the performance of the boat. Additionally the current tipweight rule keeps alu mast competative.

Also we must not forget that several builders are really NOT looking forward to the "go carbon" rat race and these builder know what they are talking about as they have plenty of experience in usign carbon in cats. So to keep everybody on board we designed the tip weight rule such that it balanced all demands a level acceptable to all parties involved. My strong advice in to not open up this rule. The immediate effect now would be to hold class growth, mostly because carbon is still in short world supply at this time, making it artificially expensive.

As a designer I'm not really interested in lighter carbon masts; the ones currently allowed should be able to get by far most of the benefits out of the design which a lighter mast won't significantly improve upon.

It is also my opinion that it will be bad marketing for the class. We shouldn't try to become A-cats unless we can really beat them at their own game. Going halveway is not going to help one bit. If a buyer finds extreme lightweight mast convincing then he will in the end always decide to go for the real thing, A-cat, and not for a poor imitation. It is my experience that it is far better to totally go you own way in this situations. Even as far as to stay with aluminium and still beat them because that really freaks them out ! It will also make the buyer reconsider. "3000 bucks cheaper and still beat them ?" It is hard to go against this by saying: "But we are 5 kg lighter !"






Estimated weight saving are about 5 kg in total here, not more. Apart from the costs it will also be foolish. Currently we are able to achieve platform stiffness with aluminium that even carbon beams would claim as a great achievement.

Additionally we don't need the weight savings for performance at this time, currently we already shame all carbon boats on the water. Think M20 and A-cats. For all their money investments and carbon usage they can't sail away in significant measure.

Do we want to make F16's faster ? Then we should fully focus on rig optimation.

Overall weight, mast tip weight, platform stiffness and even daggerboards have no all been adressed (although not everything has been implemented yet). NONE of these are limiting the F16 performance in a significant way. We would be foolish to spend much money on pretty meager improvements if any.


3. Lifting foils and unlimited rudder gudgeon extension aftward.


Not needed as this time and to much of a "single-gear-race-car", bad for races over the full windspectrum and very bad for our greatest selling point = "capable racers, that are relatively simple to learn to sail, with great versatility, for attractive price".

Gudgeon extension aftwards are a skiff thing because they try to do nearly impossible things within their boxrules. Honestly which designer would choose 12 ft length for his racer ? However, because historical circumstance 12 foot was permanently fixed and now they try their best to break out of that mould.





Absolutely not needed anymore. I can't go into details but believe me that in the relatively nearby future we are going to see F16 platforms with alu beams that will have no significant flexing anymore. I'll be surprised if any A-cat would better that. Why waste carbon-money for a thing that can be achieved for as little as 200 bucks.





It is definately healthy and yes I appreciate somebody bring the topic back up again.

Sadly I'm bound by some confidentiality clauses. But I can tell you that I've seen test data that I simply would not believe the first time I heard of them. I will explain in more abstract details.

I thoroughly dislike the "carbon !" mentality, I think that in many cases it is an excuse to disquise poor engineering. And I find it often to be an easy way out for many designers who don't want to spend time redesigning parts to better specs using more easily available materials.

For me the F16 project has always for a part been a project to show what can be done by skilled engineering using basic materials. This also kept costs really down. I'm a bit of a performance to cost ratio junky.

I now believe that this is now our biggest selling point after the versatility of the boat. It is even becoming our unique signature. Our permanent underdog charm. "Bring the best that you got and we on our 13.000/glass/alu stuff will give you a haircut".

I find that this really freaks out our competition. And believe me even a nice number of A-cat sailors are freaked out by it.

So instead of trying look more like the other but never quite complete the metamorphoses I propose to totally go the other way. Lets not become anything like another class, lets stick to our guns and principles and design the best catamaran possible using plain materials and then have decent crews shame the "buy-a-win" crowd. Because nothing hurts as bad as sailing an 60.000 M20 or 23.000 nacra A2 and having to engage a 13.500 F16 in a tacking duel on every single upwind leg. And it'll be the most fun you'll ever have on a F16.

And the new design (test)data I've seen makes this a very real possibility. We only need to get really down on the rig now to complete the picture, first steps are being taken. But then, believe me, those carbon boats will be cursing the day the F16 class was formed. Because what Matt and Gina just did will become a recurring sight.

And of course the other classes can't copy us in this approach which will make us relatively unique, a thing that always works with customers as they all want something special. This must be our policy and the proposed changes are not in-line with that.


I also predict a serious hit in the "all carbon and over specilized" design sector. You may quote me on that in 5 years time. More then a few sources have expressed that there simply is not enough profit in that area. And the new developments in formula boat classes have pretty much overtaken the "overspecialized" designs by simple modifications. The M20 design is dead, guys, the only nation to ever saw more the 3 in a single event (The Netherlands) has turned its back on its major design concept. As good as all M20's in NL are fitting jibs to their boats, the lightweight carbon masted uni-rigs with spi have proven that they simply can not compete well with the alu/glass/sloops. Apparently the jib does provide a significant amount of drive, a thing that has been known for over 100's of years.

A 800 buck jib setup setup beating 10.000 bucks of carbon fetishm ! Now that hurt and that impression is going to last.

A uni-rig without a spi ? Forget about that one too guys, it is not going to be a succes anymore. And no amount of additional carbon or weight reduction will ever correct this. It worked when their main competition were mediocre strickt one-design classes. Now that the formula classes have show how it needs to be done the challenge to light uni-rigs without a spi is significant. With their unattractive profit margin more and more builders are falling away. I predict a serious issue to arise over the next 5 years. Especially with Matt quoting the plain Blade F16's at 110 kg ready-to-race and fully fitted and a low price to match this fabulous picture. AHPC is going to join this group with a new design shortly. All the more reason for us to NOT go the route of the overspecilized carbon boats and join them in such troublesome times.

What we have done so far has proven to be exactly the right path. We should continue on that path.

Wouter