And this is exactly one of the main reasons why the F16 class rules didn't adopt the 800 mm rule as used by ISAF and Texel. It is an eternal source of errors. Much better to have to just one single spi pole length as the F16's do. Also this is much more fair in racing as well.

Scooby are you taking note of this ?

The 800 mm will force different pole length to different boats within a Formula class. If your beam is relatively far forward as on the Stealth F16 then the SCHRS / TEXEL 800 mm rule will force you to sail with a 200 to 300 mm shorter pole then crews sailing for example a Blade F16. In effect the spinnaker will be much closer to the jib luff and the spinnaker slot will be about 20 % smaller. The spinnaker will breath less freely.

THIS IS A PERFORMANCE ISSUE !

This (stupid) schrs/texel 800 mm rule is actually enforcing INEQUALITY between formula boats that should really be expected to be equal.

And this is actually the most important reason why the schrs / texel was discarded for th F16 rules. We wanted to have the most equal performacing boats irrespectibally of make or mainbeam location. The second most important reason was the eternal confusion that the 800 mm rule gave and the troubles in getting an accurate measurement.

So Scooby you will now understand why I'm a passionate supported of improving the SCHRS on this particulat point.

So how did the F16's arrive at the 3.5 mtr pole lengths.

Pretty much I made a model of a typcial F16 boat and I used that model to run performance numbers on when optimizing the boat and the class rules. This boat had the mainbeam exactly halveway down the hull which is where most designer try to place the mainbeam. Then used the calculation method as supplied by Geert in a earlier post and rounded off the number downwards to one decimal. The end result was 3.5 mtr (from 3.53 mtr). This was an excellent result as the cube-square law predicted full equality with the F18 (spi pole typical F18 = 3.80) when the F16 poles were about 3.44 mtr length. I split the difference so to say.

So this system worked out well both in F18 equality as in MODELLED average adhearence to SCHRS / TEXEL if the F16 spi poles were 3.5 mtr in length. And so that number was used in the F16 class rules.

Now all F16's would be equal to eachother irrespectable to the mainbeam position and they would be equal to the F18's as well (in this respect). Additionally, the same spi/pole/snuffer design could be used on all F16's and this is appreciated by part suppliers and sailors alike (second hand gear)

All this are advantages of the fixed length rule over the 800 mm rule. And any time I get the chance I propose to the handicap systems that they adopt a similar fixed length spi pole rule for each size spinnaker. It is easier, more fair and alot more interesting to the sailors looking to use secondhand stuff.

One additional quirck of the 800 mm rule is that for example it allows 17 sq. mtr. spis on both a 18.99 ft long cat as well as a 16 ft long cat, but doesn't allow these boats to use the same spi pole length. Then how on earth is the 16 ft boat ever to fit that area of spi to its platform ? especially when it typically also has a significantly shorter mast ? Afterall you have taken away a large portion of its foot length (distance pole tip to sidestay).

So scooby as you will understand my proposal to the Texel / ISAF systems is too just replace the current spi/pole rules by something like.


boats up to 16 ft : max spi are 17 sq. mtr. max spi pole length 3.5 mtr
boats up to 19 ft : max spi are 21 sq. mtr. max spi pole length 3.8 mtr
boats from 19 ft and beyond : max spi are 25 sq. mtr. max spi pole length 4.1 mm


These rules do actually coincide with the old rules at the hull lengths 16'5", 18 ft and 20 ft

So nothing REALLY changes in the handicap system, it is just that the rules are alot more simpler to understand and check for compliance (in addition to being more fair)

Wouter