Dear fellow F16 sailors and enthousiasts.



A year of testing the framework has passed and the time to evaluate the F16 framework is at hand. I've contacted and been contacted by several builders, homebuilders and Sailors and we, as a class, have a few points that need discussing.



Ofcourse the intent of this is to modify the rules were necessary and reconfirm the rules where it has proved to work. The final result will be a frameset that will be permanently fixed and that can only be changed in increasingly rare cases of inequality or risk of personal injury.



All in all not a unimportant excersize.



The issues will each be discussed in seperate post linked to this thread and each issue will be decided by a vote which is open to all enthousiasts. Feel free to contribute and vote.



The current message functions as an announcement and to give a describtion of the current situation so that everybody is voting on the issues with equal knowledge of the background.



First of all :



- The builders -



Are at this time AHPC (Taipan); Stealth Marine ; Bimare

With added boats of comparable performance made by Swell Catamarans (Spitfire) and Ventilo (Zipo 16)

There are two persons/companies on the side who are currently investigating producing pure F16's of their own; One of them has just indicated willingness to build a prototype.





- The class-



The main stay of the F16 class is currently the USA with some 15 boats; next is The EU with a total of 12 boats (not counting the German Taipan + spi sailors or the Spitfires) ; Ofcourse Australia is slowly getting more involved through Rob Wilson, James Sage, Phill Brander and Steward. Some other crews next to these have also shown interest or even have put spis on their boats.



Currently Rob Wilson is helping the class out with a new website which will replace the old website that is frequently in breach of the monthly transfer rate and amount of webspace.



Class ratings have been attained under Texel and the US portsmouth systems and we are currently discussing a rating under ISAF. The Australian Victory system is expected to get a comparable listing when the Taipan + spi are entered in open races there. The last can well be a matter of days.



The class has been succesful in making the class known to several sailmakers; A quick list : Randy Smyth, Goodall yacht sails, Peter Vink, Arjan Kooij and Redhead sails. All of these know what the general setup is, where to find the rules and how to contact the class.



Currently we are trying to establish contact with German?polish catbuilder to see wether they are interested in boosting their prototype 16 footer to the F16 specs.



The immediate next goal of the class is to improve the website and the availability of information on the class as well as the individual designs. Parallel to this, the framework will be evaluated and permanently fixed.





- The ground principle of the class -



A simple affordable boat with enough flexibility to be sailed and raced competitively solo, with crew made up of teenagers, parent and child, a man and a woman or light to medium weight males.



The versatility has been confirmed by sailors like Micheal Coffman, Phill Brander and Mike Crawford. Micheal is a light weight guy of 135 lbs (61 kgs) and was very comfortable sailing the Taipan 4.9 solo. He also sailed the Taipan with spi with his wife and found it to be just right; his combined crew weight was about 265 lbs = (120 kg's). His setup closely resembles the overall weight what you expect from a crew of teenagers, parent+ child teams and light husband and wife teams.



Geert Reusink and John Pierce showed that the F16 concept was competitive in relation to F18 designs with a crew weight of about 300 to 310 lbs.



Mike Crawford showed how to exploit the flexibility of the F16 boats by taking on a novice sailor and leaving of the jib and spi in a distance race. The Taipan showed to be fast and exciting in comparison to Inter 20's without overstretching the crew.



Both Kirt Simmons and Chuck Harnden showed that even a F16 in uni-rig mode without a spi was a very competitive design and wouldn't be left behind by TheMightyHobie18's and H20 in open fleet regatta's. Bill Moran has indicated that he thinks that this setup is a very good setup to start out on the learning curve of a modern style high performance catamaran.



To finish of the describtion : Elliot Tonkes showed by a well executed mathematical analyses of the Taipan 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 nationals that it can be expected that the F16 framework would centre its ideal competitive crewweight around 135 kg's (= 300 lbs) with a rather flat weight dependence over the range 120 kg's to 150 kg's. The last with regard to doublehanded sailing ofcourse. Most crews will fall into that range; especially the teenager, parent+kid, male-female and light to medium male crews.



Several sailors that have sailed with the 21 sq. mtr. and 17,5 sq mtr. spi have indicated that the 17,5 sq.mtr. is the better balanced chute for the F16 platform. It sits right, it is handled well by novice crews and wifes and doesn't really feel any slower at all.

This confirms the choice for this (maximum) size of the F16 spi.



Solo sailors on the Taipan and Stealths have indicated that the current mainsail on the F16's has plenty of power and is about right if not “maxed-out”. One sailor expressed that he felt more comfortable on these platforms than on an A-cat and that the difference in performance felt small. He may be very kind to the F16 concept as the A-cat is undeniably an upwind monster. But the point here is that he felt more comfortable on the F16 than on the A-cat without feeling noticably slower and that was just the point we were aiming for.



Comments made by other solo sailors confirmed that solo sailing the F16's is demanding but within the reach of relatively inexperienced crews. These skippers felt challenged (some say exited) but nevertheless still comfortable and in control. David Swingle expressed similar comment with regard to singlehanding the manual spi setup as do I myself. Snuffers would be even more comfortable.



How about affordability ? Well that is one topic that will be voted on. Several builders and designers have indicated that they can reach a minimum weight of 100 kg's but that it would involve much higher costs than would be adviceable. For now lets say that wew are still a considerable amount cheaper than our direct competitors like the F18’s, I17R’s and FX-ones.



So here it is; over the coming week I will add more and more topics to the discussion and I’m looking forward to closing the discussions with a vote before halve oktober.



If anybody has issue with the rules that now is the time to express it.



With kind regards,



Wouter Hijink



Chairman of the Formula 16 HP class

Currently we use the Texel / ISAF rule for determining the maximum length of the gennaker (spinnaker) pole on the F16's.



Although this is a good rule the wording can be regarded as needlessly complex and somebody proposed the following change in wording that would not change the meaning of the rule.



Current rule :



The genaker boom may not be longer than the longest distance between the

fixing point (like on mast or mastbeam) and the theoretical uttermost forward

end of the boat + 0,8 mtr.



Contrary to ISAF rule 64.2 it is allowed to fix the genaker boom to the forward beam.



The genaker boom shall be fixed and approximately on the longitudinal

centreline of the boat.





Proposed rule :



The length of the genaker boom may not be more than 3,5 meters with the horinzontal distance between the fixed end of the pole and the leading edge of the unrotated mast is considered to be part of the pole. (changed)



Contrary to ISAF rule 64.2 it is allowed to fix the genaker boom to the forward beam. (unchanged)



The genaker boom shall be fixed and sit approximately on the longitudinal centreline of the boat. (changed)







Reasons for this change :



-1- The new rule is easier to comprehend by non-mathematically skilled sailors (Youths ?) And it is far easier to check at regatta's.



-2- Also on the F16 platform the TEXEL / ISAF rule pretty much assigns 3,48 to 3,52 mtr. long poles to each different F16 design anyway. Why not set the average of these results as the limit.



-3- The main issue from the performance and equality point of view is the size of the slot between the mast and luff of the spinnaker anyway. The proposed rule modification makes this slot equal on all F16 designs independent of the individual placings of the mainbeam or issues like toe-in of hulls. Or even the fact that some grandfathered boats are less wide than allowed. In the old rule these would get an extra hit.



-4- It pretty standardizes the size of the poles and would open up the exchange of gear between brands.



-5- last but not least; The new rule is as good as equal to the Texel / ISAF rule in its final result; give or take an inch; who is going to mind ?





Okay guys your turn to shoot holes in this proposal or give your support for it.



Wouter

Currently the rule on minimum overall weight is worded as :



The minimum weight of the boat ready to sail, excluding non permanently fixed wings, is fixed at :



1-up (cat rigged with genaker gear) : 95,0 kg.

2-up (sloop rigged with genaker gear) : 100,0 kg.



(just to illustrate: 95 kgs = 210 pounds, 100 kgs = about 221 pounds)





Proposal # 1 : is to raise the minimum weight of the doublehanded F16 boat to 105 kg's.



Proposal # 2 : is to raise the minimum weight of the singlehanded boat to 102 kg's. Or better put, place the singlehander at 3 kg's less than the doublehander instead of the 5 kg's ued now.





The proposed new rule when combining both proposals is :



The minimum weight of the boat ready to sail, excluding non permanently fixed wings, is fixed at :



1-up (cat rigged with genaker gear) : 102,0 kg.

2-up (sloop rigged with genaker gear) : 105,0 kg.



(just to illustrate: 102 kgs = 227 pounds, 105 kgs = about 232 pounds)





The reasons for this proposal (coming from multiple parties) :



Proposal -1-



-1- The minimum weight of 100 kg's overall is attainable but at a price. Builders have expressed that this price may well be in conflict with the F16 class goal of offering affordable High Performance boats. The extra 5 kg doesn't affact performance much but does add a considerable amount of cost. The last is mainly caused by the fact that builders must use carbon poles and booms as well as super light boards, rudders and stocks to get down that low. Most have indicated that they don't want to shave of the 5 kg's off the hulls to keep the platform strong and stiff. The cheaper alu parts are also simplier (and cheaper) for the boat owner to replace himself or repair himself.



-2- The sailors of the grandfathered boats including spinnaker gear will be withing 1 or 2 kg's of the 105 kg's minimum overall weight. With a (heavier) snuffer system and carbon mast they will be right on the 105 kg's mark. The owners of these boats who have been very supportive in the early stages will be garanteed that they will stay competitive with the newly designed boats. This is of particular importance to the Taipan 4.9 spi sailors.



-3- The crews racing under the ISAF handicap system no longer require to carry corrector weights to be rated equally to the F18 class rating.



-4- the calculated performance loss is only 0,65 * 36 secs = 23 seconds per hour = less than 1 %. The savings in costs could be in the order of 1000,- USD or Euros = about 10 %



-5- The end result will be a F16 platform that is both cheaper and more robust and that can realistically be build by homebuilders from simple materials (no oven to cook carbon etc)





Proposal -2-



-1- The main idea behind the 1-up / 2-up F16 class is that a 2-up F16 can easily be converted to a competitive 1-up platform by taking the jib and jib blocks off and some stuff like the second trapeze wires. According to builders and people in the know the leaving off of these things will only account for some 2 kg's and not the 5 kg's that was assumed in the current rules. The gap of 5 kg's would allow the creation of specialized 1-up platforms that could never be converted back to the 2-up setup. This could cause inequality within the 1-up class. 3 kg's (a safety margin of 1 kg) was proposed as a much more fair reduction in weight.



-2- The lighest 1-up with spi currently is the Taipan 4.9 with spi. The spi gear was earlier determined to be around 5 kg's with relatively simple, robust and inexpensive materials. The Taipan catrigged has a minimum class weight of 97 kg's ; when the spi is added it will come out at exactly of the new minimum overall 1-up weight of 102 kg's.



-3-When the newer designs take of teh 2 kg's jib gear and related stuff they will come out at 103 kg's which is well within the fair range of truelly competiveness weights when the minimum is set at 102 kg's.



Your reactions please; both when in support or against this proposal

De rule itself will remain unaltered as she works and is used by ISAF and Texel measureres as well as in teh F18 and iF20 class rules.



However, by measuring our own spinnakers we found that the new high aspect spinnakers of today very closely approximate the formula



SMG = 75 % * SF instead of SMG > 75 % * SF



In other words they are compliant with the rule SMG > 75 % * SF by being just an extremely small fraction wider then SMG = 75 % * SF.



Thanks to a friend who did do the math on the subject de calculation rule for the size of spinnaker could be made much less complex.



Under the assumption that SMG = 75 % * SF the formula for the size given by



area = SF * (SL1+SL2) / 4 + (SMG-SF/2) * (SL1+SL2) / 3



simplifies to :



area = 1/3 * SF * (SL1 + SL2)



Where



* SF is the length of the foot measured around the edge of the sail between the lowest points of the luff and the leech ;



* SL1 is the length of the luff of the sail, from the highest point of the sail, to the lowest point of the sail on the luff ;



* SL2 is the length of the leech of the sail measured along the edge of the sail, from the highest point of the sail, to the lowest point of the sail on the leech.



And SMG is is the width at mid-height, which shall be taken between the mid point of the luff and the mid point of the leech





Clearly the second rule is much easier to use during boat checks at regatta's and most people will understand the second formula and not the first.



Remember that both rules give the same results ! The rule itself hasn't been changed.



The proposal is that the new wording is something analogue to.



The spinnaker must satisfy the condition : SMG > 75% * SF



Way of calculating the area:



When the spinnaker satisfies the condition 75 % * SF < SMG =< 77 % * SF than the area is calculated using the formula :



area = 1/3 * SF * (SL1 + SL2)



if the spinnaker satisfies the condition SMG > 77% * SF than the original ISAF formula is used :



area = SF * (SL1+SL2) / 4 + (SMG-SF/2) * (SL1+SL2) / 3



Where :



Bla, bla, bla



**



Or maybe somebody has a better, even simpler, wording that leaves the meaning in tact but makes the whole rule easier to understand.



One party suggested that the class could rule that all the spis used satisfy the condtion 75 % * SF < SMG < 77% * SF and just have the derived formula in our rules set.



This condition will still be fully compliant with the Texel and ISAF rules and all new spis are practically of the condition SMG = 75% * SF anyway. So no-one would get hurt.



Any ideas with respect to this topic ?

Currently the F16 rules state that :



The mast :



The length of the mast, excluding the mast foot, shall not be more than 9 mtr.



There shall not be more than 0,1 mtr distance between the bottom of the

mastsection and the top of the forebeam.



The circumference of the mast section shall not be more than 0,500 mtr.





The new proposed rule is (also reworded) :





The mast



The circumference of the mast section shall not be more than 0,500 mtr.



The distance between the base of the mast section and the top of the forebeam may never be more than 0,1 mtr. This distance is referred to as "the mast foot"



The distance from the base of the mast section to the top of the mast may not be more than 8,5 mtr. This distance is referred to as mast length.



A piece of mast section and fitting, combined no taller then 0,075 mtr, with the sole purpose of hoisting and holding up the mainsail may be excluded from the mast length measurement when the distance between the highest point of the hoisted mainsail on the mast and the base of the mast section is no more than 8,5 mtr. This part of the mast is referred to as "the mast crane" and it must be clearly and visibliy seperated from the mast section that is measured to be 8,5 mtr. The mainsail may never be hoisted past the marker.





As you can see the wording has changed somewhat too. However the meaning of the rules has remained unaltered with the exception of the lower mast length ; te proposal states that this should be reduced from 9 mtr. to 8,5 mtr. The extra rule concerning the mast crane is to allow the mainsail to be really hoisted up to 8,5 mtr. This is done to equalizes the Hobie masthook fittings with the ring and hook fittings.



The reason for the reduction in mast height are :



-1- All modern 16 ft designs come out with 8,5 mtr. masts anyway. The Stealth, The Ventio zipo 16, the Spitfire Cirrus Energy, etc. It looks like this is the optimal rig length for a 16 foot platform anyway. The new F16 design from an undisclosed party will also use a 8,5 mtr. rig.



-2- The sailors currently involved have expressed that they feel the 8,5 mtr. rig is powerfull enough and that a taller mast isn't needed. Several tests with very capable (but undisclosed) sailors have shown that the 8,5 mtr. rig wasn't much slower at all with regard to A-cat rigs even in light winds.



-3- The analysis of Elliot Tonkes (Taipan nationals 2000/2001 and 2001/2002) showed the 8,5 rig to already put the competitve weight around 135-140 kg's. Going for a taller rig would only shift the optimal weight to higher crewweigths and decentre the optimal crewweight in the 120 to 150 kg's that was its intended crewweight range.



-4- The 8,5 mtr. rig will immediately level out all of the grandfathered boats and new boats with respect to the rig. As far as I'm aware only the Bim F16 from W.F. and my own Typhoon F16 boat have 9 mtr. tall masts All other boat owners sail with 8,5 mtr. masts anyway; this includes the other Bim F16 sailors that are involved. I'm willing to cut down my own mast when needed.



-5- It would be a great gesture towards the great crews of grandfathered boats that have helped create the class and have been so instrumental in its growth. For example; this rule in combination with the 105 kg's proposal will garantee that grandfather boat sailors like the Taipan 4.9 spi crew will stay competitive indefinately. It will also lock in the Aussie grandfathered F16 boat sailors into the class and not clash with their other one-design aspirations. The last is no small advantage.



-6- The reduction ofs the mastheight will strongly decrease the number of different rigs that the F16 class boats couldl harbour. The rigs in the class will more resemble one -another and thus increase fairness of racing as well take away the cause of some nervousness that this issue seems to work up here and there.



Anyone against; Anyone in favour ?



Lets here it

Just received this input, which I personally think is a good one. I will try to convey the message in my own words.:



The performance equalisation rule is currently a length rule aimed at equalling out performance over a wider range of crewweights. It isn't used at this time but was left in just in case we were to find a need for it.



Experience thus far has shown that the optimal competitive wreweweight is rather higher than lower and it is centred at 135 and 140 kg's. It is also found that the dependency is rather flat which means that crews in the range from 120 to 150 stand very good changes of making a win.



But a more important point made was that the F18 class is looking at scrapping the jib rule as it isn't perceived to work. Add to this that the 21 sq.mtr. spinnaker is considered to big for the platform by some sailmakers and crew alike will all but nullify the effectiveness of such a rule.



Clearly without a noticable need or effectiveness of the Equalisation rule were are better of with the much simplified wording of the rules.



Also the values used now are the same for all boats and roles anyway. Scrapping the rule would hit nobody.

I prefer the old rule..

Are you going to suggest to WF he now needs to cut 0.5 meters off his Bim 16 mast and your going to cut 0.5 meters off your rig?

The 9 mtr boats which are build before the date of a possible acceptance of the rules will be permanently dispensated. For life as they say. My current count is there is only one 9 mtr. or even over-8,5-mtr rig right now next to my own.



As the chairman of the class I don't have the luxury of dispensating myself, so yes I will cut of my mast, my mainsail will not be to much of a problem as I ordered that one with alot of boom clearance. It will just sit lower on boat now with or without a few minor modifications.



Wouter

than to have 15 T4.9 sailors in the u.s. buy new masts (not gonna happen, it would just make 4.9 sailors less supportive of f16). Same for Stealth and Aus T4.9 sailors.

BTW, WF no longer races his Bim 16... so it would only affect him for resale.

I vote for the new mast height, as it only affects one boat in the world and would make the Stealths and T4.9's permanently competetive.

Michael Coffman

T4.9 #32

Wouter(and all)-

Should we permanently dispensate the BOATS or the MASTS on those boats? That is, if the buyers of (this/ these?) boats replace their mast(s) they must adhere to the 8.5m rule?

Also, I noted in the rules the jib leech can not be convex - but I believe one of the proposed boats (and other selftacking jib cats) technically have convex leeches and (at least one) full batten and I would be in favor of allowing this.



Kirt

Hi Wouter and friends…

I would like to share some thought on the matter of the rule changes…especially the weight and Mast height.



Although my boat is far from completed…and the proposed changes will not cause me to modify anything that I have built so far…I have to say my vote is no to the changes on weight and mast height for the following reasons…



The thing that attracted me to the F-16HP in the first place was the freedom of rules…or maybe better stated…a minimum of rules, which allowed for a tremendous amount of experimentation while still keeping the perimeters tight enough to insure fair competition.



Our class was described as cutting edge…with flexibility in the design criteria to inspire builders to stretch out of their comfort zones, and help bring cat sailing into the 21 century. Now after a year, which really hasn’t allowed much time for development, we are looking at lowering the bar…inching back toward the same old same old…I have to ask why?



No one seems to think there is any significant advantage to having a 9 meter mast over a 8.5 meter mast…if this is the case…why not leave it as it is…at least it allows for further development…why stifle creativity? The rig design will seek its own optimum…why put artificial restrictions on it? In what real way is it hurting the class? Is it some kind of psychological disadvantage to race against someone whose mast is 19-1/2” longer?



Increasing the minimum weight …As far decreasing the weight difference between one up and two up I have no quarrel…the idea of a 3 Kg difference seems logical. Raising the minimum weight of the class as a whole I see as counter productive to the original intent of being “cutting edge”…again…Why not leave room for improvement? Why go backwards?



I am in full agreement that we need to work, with not against the boat builders who express and interest in marketing a cat within the F-16HP class. But the standards have been set, it is up to the manufactures to meet the criteria in place, not the other way around. There is a lot of room for innovation…and we are not necessarily talking about autoclave technology here…



Right now I can buy 5.7 oz Carbon fiber cloth 0/90 50” wide for $17.94 a lineal yd. ($108.00 US per layer/per hull) or 5.0 oz Kevlar cloth 0/90 50” wide for $13.98 a lineal yd. (About $84.00 US per layer/per hull) or 6 oz S-glass 0/90 60” wide for $11.27 a lineal yd (About $70.00 US per layer/per hull) I am talking Retail prices here…If you are buying wholesale in large enough quantities the price could be a much as 40% less. Any one of these fabrics could be used to decrease the weight of the hulls. It would not be necessary to gain all the weight reduction by going to carbon spars, although it is the best place to reduce weight.



This is assuming they are already using a quality Vinylester resin…I would think no one would be using Iso or Ortho Polyester at this point in time.



I am not accusing anyone of over pricing there product, I am not accusing anyone of making an inferior product…Boat builders are in business to make a profit… and if they don’t, we all lose… it’s an incredibly nasty, obnoxious job to build a GRP boat… and they deserve every penny they get…I am just saying there are alternatives out there…and IF there is a reason to build a better “mouse trap” someone will eventually build it…and the others will quickly follow…but if the incentive is taken away…there will be little to inspire change, especially since there is so little profit built into the product as it is. After all we are only talking 11 pounds here…5% of the overall all up weight…it is possible…and possible at a reasonable cost…it’s just a lot easier to maintain the status quo…



As I look at the proposed changes, I can’t help but notice that the new minimums would put the Taipan 4.9 very near the optimum design parameters. The only thing lacking is to narrow up the beam specification and it would make the Taipan fully optimized…Is that going to be the next proposed change? From what I read here on the forum, the Taipan is by far the best represented boat of the class…and don’t get me wrong…I love the Taipan 4.9 and the boat I am building borrows from it liberally…but I thought this was suppose to be a box rules F-16HP class? If I knew from the onset that the F-16HP class was going to evolve into another name for the Taipan 4.9 one design class, I would have built a compliant Tiapan 4.9 one design… Also, are the other commercial boat builders going to perceive this as favoritism? Whether intentional or not?



So in conclusion…I would like to say…please let the maximum weight of the two-up remain at 100 Kg. (bring the one up weight to 97 KG if necessary) and leave the Mast height at 9 Meters. Lets keep the possibilities wide open, at the forefront of the fleet. If we start compromising now we might be taking the first step toward mediocrity…



Thank you for letting me share my opinions, and it is my hope that I have not offended anyone here with what I have said…I like to have all the facts on the table when I go about making a decision, especially one that will have such lasting ramifications.



Peace

Seeker,

You made some very good points, and from the perspective of a class starting purely from scratch, I'd be inclined to agree with you, if I weighed 190 lbs. However, please consider a few things:

1. mast height - why do you say 19 inches is not significant? How many 28 ft. A-class masts do you see? Personally, I believe that 19 inches cat-rig could be a significant advantage, with proper crew weight. It would probably only be a few boatlengths, but that wins races. And possibly more importantly, it would move the ideal 1-up weight up to 180-190, or more. This really isn't too questionable... look at A-classes. Remember, this class is designed with couples, juniors, lightweights in mind. There are a number of classes out there in the "beefy" range.

2. You inferred that it would only benefit the T4.9, and that this was favoritism. Actually, it would mean that BOTH the T4.9 and Stealth were closer to optimum. If anything the weight would help the Stealth more than the T4.9. And the T4.9 would still not have quite the max. beam. And currently, these are the ONLY 2 designs with any real volume of production. So what manufacturers would be offended?

3. How much participation/support do you want to have from T4.9 and Stealth owners? The expectation that they support (and in fact make up a vast majority of) the class is at odds with the expectation that they give up a significant amount of mast height (both T4.9 and Stealth). You asked "in what real way is this hurting the class." Well, I know of a number of T4.9 sailors who are quite leery of supporting a class for which their boats are NOT optimised. This seems very "real" to me. In fact, I have delayed ordering a new main for this reason.

4. You said "As I look at the proposed changes, I can’t help but notice that the new minimums would put the Taipan 4.9 very near the optimum design parameters." Well, that is exactly the intent, and to "optimize" the Stealth as well. Are you telling me that you expect me to support a class in which I'm NOT "near the design parameters?" This is what truly concerns me. On the one hand, you say that these differences are minor, and of uncertain benefit. On the other, you say that you DON'T want the Taipan to be close to optimum...



If this is to be based on the F18-style racing, then there SHOULDN'T be huge differences in mast height, weight, etc. Rather, the differences should be in sails, hull design, blade design, self-tackers, snuffers, etc. The question isn't WHETHER there is a mast height restriction, there already is one. It is only about adjusting it.

You spoke about "lowering the bar." Well, if the T4.9 and stealth are what you are "lowering" it to, is this mediocrity? Personally, I think the T4.9 is fast as hell.

Please don't take this as an attack on you... your argument was well thought out, and I have a lot of respect for anyone willing to build their own boat. But these were a few points which you might not have thought of.

Thanks,

Michael C.

T4.9#32

P.S. Maybe this will put everything in perspective as to why many of us who already have boats feel so strongly about this vote: new masts and sails for all the T4.9's in the U.S would come to something like a combined U.S. $40,000. For the Aussie boats and the U.K. Stealth's, who knows. And yet making this change in wording would cost nothing to anyone. Is it really worth splitting the class over?

Hi Michael



My only intent was to petition to keep things they way they are…The Taipan has what it’s designers feel is the optimized rig…obviously by the number sold, many share that belief. Stealth must have felt the same way in regard to mast height. You state that if the mast height was kept at 9 meters, the ideal one up weight would be closer to 190 lb. or more…and here you are making my point for me…if you weigh 150 lb? (I weigh about 170) would you want a 9-meter mast if it has to be used in all conditions? Probably not…you would choose what worked best for you…are you going to deny the heavier sailor the ability to even the playing field? After all the sail area is going to remain constant.



I was under the impression that differences in the boat designs were one of the favorable attributes of the F-16HP class…not a liability…it’s not one design…its box rules…difference in design IS a part of the overall concept. You are not just racing the other sailor…like you do in one design…you are racing the other sailor and his equipment…like it or not, that’s a fact…If you want to race with other sailors on other boat designs and you think everything is going to be equal…well…you might want to rethink your position…



I thought that was the great thing about so many of you having the Taipan 4.9, you could race one design when you wanted a very ridged boat for boat equality. And also race in a more open setting within the F-16HP class. As you already noted the Taipan is a very fast boat and has already had sail concessions made within the F-16HP class if I remember correctly, so where the beef? The best of both worlds…just because someone shows up with a boat that’s 11 lbs lighter than yours or has a slightly higher mast than yours doesn’t automatically mean he/she is going to win, and you are going to lose…



Stealth had the opportunity to design its boat to optimize the F-16HP rules and it chose to go with the 8.5-meter mast…why not let the other Designer/builders/manufactures have the same freedom to design? Taipan and Stealth may be the only ones currently in productions but I was under the impression that others were in process of developing one as well.



Why must everything revolve around one boat in a box rules setting…regardless of how great it is? You have one design racing and F-16HPracing…how about giving a little room to breath?



Peace

Michael, Seeker-

Both well thought out, constructive posts-

Let me just add a few comments for consideration:

Mast height- I agree if this is left "open" an "optimum" height will be arrived at through trial and error- But from my experience in the "A"'s and 18 sq's this is a somewhat pricey procedure requiring both mast and sail alterations which can be quite expensive and/or result in different "rigs" for different conditions. All current "A" rigs are pretty "standardized" at ~9m because that's what seems to be consistently fast on that boat currently so all the masts at the Worlds were quite close in height despite different mains, sailors and hulls. Apparently all the current F 16HP compliant boat builders (except the one-off US BIM 16) have settled on an 8.5m mast height so there must be SOME "magic" (at least perceived) to this height on these boats. Limiting to this height will simply "push" builders, sailmakers and mastbuilders to optimize within these confines and not even have to consider 8.6m, 8.7m, 8.8m, 8.9m or 9m masts (Who knows where the "max" is right now or will be?). Since current masts are this height it at least allows a starting point for further mast/sail experimentation w/o having to buy a new mast to begin with or worry about the effects of the additional 0.1-0.5m in length change along with the changes that are inherent in that. Yes, we are a "box rules" class, but like the F18 class we are trying to keep the class reasonably even in competitiveness as well as affordable. That is why we chose the "HP" (High Performance) over the "HT" (High Tech) in the class name.

Weight- Even the Taipan class has recently increased the minimum weight of the uni boats because it was felt that home built boats could not be built to the prior minimum and be competitive or long lasting (even though the production ones could) so they "uped" the min. to keep everybody "even".

The "A"'s used to have NO min. weight when I first got involved and persons were building flyweight custom boats that won big regattas and then self-destructed shortly thereafter. The class polled all the manufacturers (realizing that the "key" to success of the class was to be supported by the builders of the boats) as to what they considered the lightest weight was they could achieve building a durable cost-effective boat and the class "temporarily" established a class minimum. The class grew exponentially in popularity after that. The Taipan was already close to optimal because it was one of the original designs close to 16 feet long (it's short too by the way!) that was similar enough that we got the idea to try to develop a new Formula class based on 16 foot boats. The Stealth, BIM 16, and Taipan characteristics were all considered when establishing these parameters and all are "close" to optimal, but all were "suboptimal" in some sense but not necessarily the same sense (although all were over the minimum weight set).

As to the comment about increasing optimal weight with a taller rig- this may be true- but the "A"'s are able to stay competitive through a wide crew weight by using different mast/main combinations. I realize we aren't the same since we have 2' less waterline and this DOES make a difference but we are also 6" wider (if "optimal") and have spis.

There is also the possibility of having a "graduated" weight reduction in the class (ie the min. weight decreases by some set amount every ____ years) - This is something the "A"'s have considered to help promote "development" in the class but even in that class there are some strong advocates against it.

Michael

I really don’t understand your comment about all the US Taipan sailors having to buy new masts…With the exception of Kirt…didn’t all of the US Taipan owners buy them after the F-16HP concept was brought into being? Didn’t all of these owners buy their boats with the 8.5-meter mast knowing full well it was not the maximum length? (This is a question, as I do not know the exact date that the 9-meter length was adopted)…



Why all the sudden, would any US Taipan 4.9 owner want to buy a new mast? And make his boat non-legal for Taipan one design? If you are in the optimum weight category why would you buy a longer mast if it was going to give you inferior performance to lengthen it? Would you buy one just for the privilege to say you had longest mast that the rules would allow? Bragging rights? I don’t understand? Please explain.



To take into consideration a parallel issue…I have not heard of a stampede to buy new cross beams/trampolines/standing rigging because the Taipan in not maximum width. Why would one do so with the mast? Especially when it has been the rule from the beginning? I don’t think that argument holds any water…



In one of the former posts, Michael I see your weight at 135 lb…if this is correct…putting the average sailor weight at about 165lbs you have a -30# advantage in light air… Wouter would have to do the math…but I would suspect it would take close to an additional ½ meter of mast to equal that out for the 165 lb sailor in light conditions…any comments?



As far as my being against the Taipan being optimized…nothing could be further from the truth…that is the very thing that set me …(and from what I understand Wouter) on the path of creating our own F-16HP. I am all for it…we just see it form different sides…you favor the rules to be tailored to the existing boat…I favor making a boat to fit the new rules…I concede that your way is the most cost effective way from the stand point of a existing Taipan owner…but I though this was to be a new class?…Why for example should I build a boat who’s design criteria was to fit in the standard width of an Australian garage when I live in North America with no such constraints? Does that make any sense to you?



I am starting to believe it is all in ones perspective of what constitutes one design, and what constitutes boxes rules…maybe I am the one who is out of focus on this issue…maybe I am looking at it as more developmental than its creators had intended…or it may be that I am coming at it as one who enjoys the design/build aspect as much as the sailing itself…I must admit if I had never been involved in boat building and trying to push design parameters, then like you Michael, I would probably be more inclined to gravitate towards a more homogenized approach…not saying one is better than the other…just two very different perspectives. I can appreciate that you spent $11,000 + on a boat that is class competitive, and have a very real fear that someone is going to make a major break through that could turn your thoroughbred into an also ran (as I was told happened in the 18 square class).



I in no way want to inject anything that would fracture the integrity of or “split the class” I am just honestly sharing some concerns I have about the future of this potentially awesome catamaran class. Personally I am disappointed that we chose to limit our performance to that of the F-18 class. But I understand why the class took that tactic, and accept it as such.



I find it refreshing that the class has been set up in such a way that I even have an opportunity to express these viewpoints.



The majority has ruled in every issue put before this group …and it will in this case as well, I am sure. Since the Taipan owner represent the lion share of the participants, it will be decided by them…that is the way it works…and I have no problem with that. The case that I am arguing is one for maximum freedom of design…if the class chooses to limit that…so be it…at least you know where I stand.



I might add that I doubt that my boat will come in a 100 Kg. Or even 105 Kg. As I have added additional freeboard compared to the Taipan…so I have nothing to gain personally…I would like the freedom to use a 9 meter stick, if that is what I thought would work to my best advantage…but I will abide whatever the class chooses.



I didn’t quite understand Kirt’s reference to the production boats coming in lighter than the Timber ones… the information I heard said just the opposite…That a Timber boat built with care and an eye on watching the weight going in may actually come in under weight and need correctors. Who’s right? I don’t know…



Peace

My platform is a stretched twin moth setup.. ie I stretched a local moth hull to 16'3.. Made two and in the process of bolting them together.. How fast will this be I have no idea.. Im a skiffie so the limiting factor will be the skipper.. With luck we should be under the class weight and still be strong enough to hold in the local conditions..



As for your agruments..

In my experience in open classes.. teams developed rig heights that worked best for them.. Yes it cost more in development and time.. lighter crews ended up with shorter rigs.. Heavier crews with taller rigs.. The speed difference was equalized..



With offending if this is truely valid .. perhaps we should look at restricting to the class to only the Tiapan and the Stealth .... Im sure both manufacturers would be happy and no other manufaturers would be offended either since they arent currently making any volume numbers?



I cant see the F16 taking off here unless its truely devopmental.. Why support a class when one can go purchase a T4.9 and sail in the local T4.9 fleet? We wont be seeing any Bims or Stealths down here.. There wouldnt be any incentive to experiment.. No experimentation no F16 class...

we can have discussions without resorting to name-calling ;-)

An answer to some of your points:

1. "Taipan is a very fast boat and has already had sail concessions made within the F-16HP class if I remember correctly, so where the beef? "

Answer: none, sloop-rigged. That's where the sail-area concession came, in the jib. The cat-rig has a shorter mast AND less sail area. That's the beef. Do YOU want to sail with a shorter mast and less sail area than the guy next to you with the same rating? No, of course you don't.

2. "Didn’t all of these owners buy their boats with the 8.5-meter mast knowing full well it was not the maximum length?"

Answer: yes, assuming that they a) planned on racing f16, and b) realized that the rules allowed for taller masts. Unfortunately, this is not the case for many people. A number of people in the U.S. and of course Aus bought their boats either before F16, with F16 as a nice opportunity to sail with a spinnaker (majority) or with the assumption (supported by the F16 class) that their boats were "practically f16's" (majority). What it boils down to is, do you want these people to become more involved? That's what this is all about.

3. "Why all the sudden, would any US Taipan 4.9 owner want to buy a new mast."

Answer: reality check. Within reason, you can make a boat SOMEWHAT faster by adding both mast height AND crew weight. How many competetive 140 lb. A-class skippers do you see racing with 28 ft. masts? NONE. You just see a few 140-150 lb a-class skippers with 30ft. masts who just take their lumps in anything above 9kts windspeed. Ask the Aussies if they think even the 4.9 (remember, less mast and sail area) is a "lightweight's" boat.

3. "I would suspect it would take close to an additional ½ meter of mast to equal that out for the 165 lb sailor in light conditions…any comments?"

Answer: yes. Let me get this straight. You want me to give up any advantage I have in 1-7, by allowing you to have a taller mast. You are then going to have an advantage in 8+ as well, since you are heavier, and have a wider boat. Wow, that sounds fair. Wait, no it doesn't. Why don't you ask the 4.9's builders if they think a 140 lb cat-rig skipper has an overall advantage? They'll ask you if you're crazy ;-)

4. "I Why would one do so with the mast...I don’t think that argument holds any water."

Answer: You're exactly right, they won't. The performance increase wouldn't justify it. They'll just get fed up with getting beaten by a boatlength or two to the windward mark, even when they are equal to the other skipper, and go back to racing one-design. That was my point.

5. Regarding the development aspect... Stewart is building a moth-hulled boat, which is legal to race alongside a T4.9. You're telling me that limiting his mast height to 8.5 vs. 9 meters makes these one-design? Let's keep to the big picture here: We're limiting POWER, not overall design. Let's be fair here. I mean, if you really want an "open" class, why have a sail area limit or a mast height limit or a width limit? My point is merely that mast height = power, and you'll run off your base class if you don't limit it.

Again, I understand where you're coming from, and it's an exciting perspective. But I'm concerned about the growth of the class.

Thanks for you input,

Michael Coffman

Hi Michael



I agree with you that it nice to discuss these ideas without name-calling…but I think it has more to do with the integrity of the participants than the artificial restraints of the forum format. Even on the open forum the two of us could exchange ideas without letting our emotions get the best of us. I have meaningful debates on other internet forums on a regular basis…and I would like to think you do to…facts and logic are thrown out the window the first time either party makes a personal attack…at which point the discussion becomes worthless



If we chose to “flair up” every time someone questioned our position, we would soon end up self-destructing. There must be unity in the class, even when individuals don’t see eye to eye.



We both have our point of views…we both have valid points…and now that we have had this chance to discuss it…I am much more aware or your position, and you are of mine…hopefully this has given other Class members food for thought on both sides of the table…So that, what ever decisions are made, will be in the best interest of the F-16HP class…in the US, Europe, and Australia.



In closing…I would like to say it would be wise of us to seek council from our brothers/sisters in Australia when it comes to issues like this…they seem…no they are… way ahead of the US in many aspects of sailing. They have already been there…done that…and could probably help us avoid a lot of the traps lying in wait to snare a new class such as our own…I would be very curious as to Phil’s comments concerning this issue…



To many, my comments in these last few posts may make me appear to be over reacting…but from my perspective…decisions like these, early on, will set us on a course that will either nurture this class into a world wide phenomenon or snuff the life out of it. We are at another fork in the road, which path are we going to choose?

It has much larger ramifications than how it effects you and I personally…

Just remember "if you do things the way you have always done them, you will get the results you have always got in the past”.



Looking at the long list of boats on the “dead boat society roster” we might want to stay on our more creative course, because whatever they tried didn’t work. These are serious issues…we need vote for what is best for the class.





Thank you for letting me present my perspective…



Bob Hall

Michael

The advantage would be yours in 1-7 knots if you had a 9- meter mast up. I have to agree with Bob: "The thing that attracted me to the F-16HP in the first place was the freedom of rules…or maybe better stated…a minimum of rules, which allowed for a tremendous amount of experimentation while still keeping the perimeters tight enough to insure fair competition." A Taipan 4.9 with a 9-meter mast (Big Rig) option would make the boat even more versatile.

Strict Rules are for One-Design Boats.



Mike Hagan

PS. Wouter, Kirt, Michael, & Bob thanks for all information and Discussions.