The whole point of using T foils on a cat (two, one on each rudder) is to greatly reduce pitching, which is exactly what they do whether fixed or adjustable. Who the hell would want to have to adjust T foils on a cat when fixed foils work so well anyway, and, for a cat, it is very dubious whether having adjustable foils could even be used IN ACTUAL PRACTICE on the water to advantage. It is easy to sit back and debate all sorts of scenarios about “if you did this” and “if you did that” and argue endlessly about some conceived resulting advantage – THEN THROW OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATH WATER – Why don’t you at least wait until some one actually tries before you decide. Banning adjustable T foils when non really exist for cats is the same as convicting some one of a heinous crime in their absence (and later finding out you were in error)
I have tried and found that for me adjustable foils were an abomination on a cat (Good for two handed mono hulls that by our standards are slow and allow “time” though) and there is no need to ban them as I don’t think anyone will ever come up with a system of adjustable T foils for a cat that will ever be used.
I call this whole debate nothing more than a “storm in a teacup”
Mast tip weight though is something else – I think it should be removed – I feel strongly that it is something that will, in the future restrict the class rather than what it’s intended intention now is. I put it in the category of there being certain dimensions that are necessary to define the object, but too many “restriction” are never good (particularly in the long term) Good forward thinking is what makes the difference between long life and a seven day wonder and I don’t really think “mast tip” is long term thinking but more like an unnecessary restriction that may come back to bite you on the bum.

against banning adjustable foils..

Had some experience with the adjustable I14 foils.. We made ours very cheaply.. So money isnt an issue..

As for tweeking and gaining advantage we could use this argument with downhalls, outhauls cunnighams ect..

one can do this by weight distribution.. proposing to ban this as well?

I beleive all this debate is great,if you ban tip weight it will automatically start the have and the have not divisions same result wiil be if T foils are introduced.
I beleive alluminium masts where used to keeps costs down and also durability ,maybe carbon has come a long way from the early days .
As for splintering a class you guys/gals are standing on the edge of a slope with a lot of other guys/gals standing behind watching what is about to happen because if the class starts bringing in changes that will increase costs on boats and maybe repair issues they might go else where or stay where they are, because 1 in all in (take the A class for example)
anyway thats my view from someone standing behind

[color:"blue"] Simon,

I think the answer to your question on retrospective banning of a development can be found here: [/color]

2.6 Spirit of the Rule

2.6.1 In case of doubt, the intention of the rule makers, which is the spirit, shall
take precedence over the letter of the rule.

2.6.2 The spirit of the rule includes, among other principles, the following considerations :

2.6.2.A Preserving general equality in overall performance between craft of different make, accepting small variations, in order to guarantee fair racing between designs of different make.

2.6.2.B Maximizing the freedom to optimize a design to personal preference and to improve the performance of a given crew and craft through refinement.

2.6.2.C The allowance to gently improve, by design, the handling and overal behaviour of a craft in small controlled steps which don't upset the balance in the class to the extent that the continued existence and growth of the class are no longer guaranteed.

[color:"blue"] or: [/color]

2.7.3 All amendments, changes or additions shall be placed on one pre-next-season notice unless the Formula 16 authoriy considers it to be essential to act immediately to prohibit or penalize a dangerous feature.

[color:"blue"] So the answer is Yes, such a development could well be banned retrospectively. [/color]

The cost of an Alu mast per mast is surprising low. The only real drawback of alu mast production is the fact you have to run a batch of them, typically 250 kg or 500 kg per production run.

I may not disclose the real production cost of an Alu mast section, I can tell you however that John Pierce earlier statement about the price difference is quite close.

For that price difference we can even have a new die build for each batch of 17 to 34 masts, which will improve accuracy and even allow the masts to be redesigned with each batch if progressing experiences demands that.

This is just to answer Davids questions and this is not an argment in voting for or against the proposed changes.

Wouter

This is not my experience and I've been involved in some actual F16 alu beam production and the designing of a new Alu F16 mast.

Additionally theft is theft and this doesn't factor in into the new price of a commercially build boat.

Wouter

Although a system for a cat is going to be a bit more complex, especially if it is to do what Simon suggests and control the blades in opposite directions upwind and in the same direction downwind.

Paul

Would a nice compromise not be to rule that it may not be possible that the angle of the T-foils relative to the hulls is adjusted while racing ?

Thus allowing adjustment between races and still leave the room for experimentation open without the fear of rising costs as there is no need for expensive control system when you can't adjust them while racing (sailing).

This is also the way we adressed the fears that were around a while back about systems that could rerake or heel the rig towards the wind while sailing/racing. Now people have only staymasters on their boats so they can adjust the trim in the break between races but not during races. This has proven to allow maximal adjustment of trim without adding any real costs.

Wouter

Ncik,

You moth example is an excellent one.

The Moths spent considerable time and money developing their system and very good it it too. It's also not Cheap.

As this development was going on, the 3 moth sailors I know all said "I'll never go foiling, I cannot afford it". 18 months later they were foiling as "I had no choice, the class was going that way and the non foiling boats were dieing". I consider this is the risk we take with the F16 class - we may end up with 2 types of F16; those that use variable trimm and those that do not.

The are now very few foiling Moths sailing sailing in events and they are NOT competitive in wind over 7 kts This may happen to the F16 class.

As John says, the F16GC could ban these boats retrospectively. Do we want to do this ?

From what I can gather, if a vote was taken to ban variable trim rudders it would probably not pass. The class as a whole needs to understand the implications of this. People who way "lets see what happen" I can understand, I am just wanting people to understand the potential for this system.

(I have one designed that would be automatic for sailing up wind and require "setting once" for a downwind leg). If I win the lottery I would develop this. I believe that the possible banning under the "spirit of the rule" gives the class a "get-out-of-jail" free card that may well prevent anyone taking the risk.)


People above have expressed worries about who we could attract to the class with the proposed change to the tip weight rule. We are activly PREVENTING people from taking part as they cannot right the boat single handed.

I would second Simon's proposal that the minimum mast tip weight be abolished. This has to be the safest option for the sailors.

Hi Simon,

you say we are stopping lightweights from sailing F16, as they can't right them due to the mast tip being to heavy. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

What cat can they right? The A would be the only one lighter and with it's mast 1/2 a metre taller all you need is some water on top of the sail or dacron soaking up water and the difference is minimal. How attractive to these jockey's is a class with a larger main than a A class and a 17m2 Spinnaker to boot.

Sorry but I think this argument is a Furfey. Besides the tip weight rule is one of the newest for the class, it was reduced not long ago and if I recall correctly the class did not want to drop the tip weight rule then.

The F16 has a class rule that the crew must be able to right the boat in ALL conditions. I am not sure other classes have this rule. This means that someone who is fairly light (maybe below 70kg) would not be able to right the boat in ZERO WIND.

Thank you to all who are contributing to this thread. Despite the reservations shown by some before I asked for agenda items, this thread has, on the whole, been very civilised. Valid points have been raised by a number of members and reasoned arguments have been presented.

I do need to make it clear however, that this thread is asking for items to be placed before the members AT THE AGM. As such, the AGM will be presented only with those items that have been formally proposed by 30th June plus the results of the 3 existing ballots.

If we are to follow the requirements of the constitution, we have insufficient time for any formal proposals arising out of this thread to be balloted BEFORE the AGM. Therefore ballots on any agenda items will have to take place after the AGM, perhaps during 2008 or maybe just before the 2008 AGM. After all the 3 ballot items that we have at present have been 'in the works' for almost 8 months as it is!

There is one particular point that also needs to be made and that is that the introduction of any amendment will be to a timetable set by the F16GC and we will act only in the best interests of the class - particularly bearing in mind the rule section on 'the spirit of the rule'. Stability of growth of the Formula 16 Class is our aim above all else.

Therefore any fears that anyone may be having that their boat is suddenly going to be out of class/ uncompetitive /devalued are, I believe, groundless.

Whoa Whoa whoa, one thing you forget to mention is that the moths were experiencing a significant downturn in participation before foiling techology was developed! Now they've got many companies around the world (some very large ones too) not able to build them fast enough to keep up with demand!!! Moths are experiencing a world wide resurgence since they introduced foils!!! So how can you say that foiling has hurt the class!!!

There was also a discussion about banning controllable surfaces on the foilers early in their development. The top guys just said, "ok, we'll learn to sail them no matter what the rules...control surfaces or not..."

Admittedly the marketing of moths has helped this resurgence.

Don't fear the technology. We'd still be in the dark ages if we feared technology.

You wouldn't be banning the boats retrospectively, just the components!

Whether adjustable T foils are banned or are not banned really makes no difference in the long term, they are just not going to be able to be used to gain any advantage over non adjustable ones on any OTB catamarans, I would cover any amount of money that any one is prepared to bet that this proves to be the case.
So why ban something that is so improbable as to be an absolute "non event"?
If some one came up with a “silly” proposal that a gaff rigged sail was faster would anyone even consider incorporating it as a restricted option for the class? Of course not, something’s are just so self evident that they do not need enunciating (or incorporating in writing as in this case) Take a good look guys adjustable T foils are just not going to happen on cats (not without hydrofoils to the bottom of CB/ dagger boards any way)
Careful guys, the more restriction that are added move the “class” closer and closer to a “one design class” and that is definitely outside “the spirit of the class”. It is either development or it is one design, which do you want? A box rule is fine until it becomes so restrictive that there is no room left in it to move, then it is no longer a box rule but a ODC.

But in order to build an efficient variable trim boat; you would not build it the same as a standard boat. The beams would be in different places. The boat would be set up differently, the hull shape would be different. The stress loads are in different places, The boat would not look like a current F16.

Agree the Moth has florished as a result of the change. My point is that this technology would change our boats completly and as a result, we would ALL HAVE TO CHANGE our boats.

Remember all the Moths were trying to do is fly (i.e. reduce drag in the water)- I do not believe that this can be done within the current F16 rules and the changes proposed for this year). Variable trim rudders allow you to create RM and thus change the boat in a fundemental way.

Also interesting to note that the Moths are now talking about building boats that have a lessor aerodynamic profile and so fly batter (again increasing the obsolessance of the older boats).

I think I've said all I intend to say on the subject now. I feel people now know my views. These boats could be built, but as I've said I do not intend to (unless someone gives me some dosh). I (and others) believe this is possible and I am as far along the road as design for rudders to be automatic upwind and a single re-set downwind.

Regarding the T-foils and additional rules.

I think the best way forward is for Simon to find a F16 sailor who will support him and then work out a rule change proposal that the GC can process according to the class rules and eventually put it to the class for the vote.

Then everybody who is in favour can then vote to accept the change and everybody that is against can vote against it. That should be sufficient to conclude the discussion.

By now Simon will have enough replies to analyse what a crossection of the others think and adjust his proposal to maximize its changes of being accepted.

I'm not sure whether I have given my take on the T-foils yet, so here goes.

I think the T-foils are a golden opportunity for the F16's, especially for singlehanders. We are indeed more limited in hull length as other classes and the effects associated with that are already well covered but with T-foils these effects can be totally corrected. With them the F16's can even close the last remaining gap with the A-cats and the 20 foot spinnaker boats. The biggest advantage of these is the fact that the longer hull length does make them more relaxed with respect to diving. With T-foils this last remaining advantage will be gone and F16 can then be pushed very hard, even by novices, in rough conditions. Especially novice singlehanded sailors will appreciate the additional stability. This will give the F16 and excellent base from which to meet the competition both on the water and in the market place and for almost no additional costs ! I truly believe the T-foils are the last item to complete the F16 package into something that will be a succes story.

From my own analysis I don't expect much advantage at all of T-foils that can be adjusted while racing. For the same reasons others have expressed already plus the fact that permanently engaging them will add drag and they are too small and more or less in the wrong spot. However by the same reasoning I don't object to ruling that only T-foils can be used that can not be tuned or adjusted while racing (sailing). Even if the boat has to make a full stop and sit there for 5 secs in order to adjust them then that would negate all the potential advantage they could bring during continued racing.

So I envision a setup where the fine-tuning of the inclination angle of the T-foils is set by tilting the rudderstock at the sterns by some simple setup but where the T-foils are then set for the whole race/day. Maybe even a setup (eyebolt with pintle on the stock) that could be adjusted out on the water with the boat in irons for a while. And where the F16 class rules actively forbid the setup to be such that the inclination angle can be adjusted while the boat is travelling through the water or during a race (between start signal and finish).

I feel that development is bets allowed for the remainder.

Wouter

Weighting the tip is the worst place to add weight, because this placement maximizes the angular inertia of the mast more than any other place, increasing pitching (hobby horsing) in chop. When combined with a minimum mast weight, the tip weight creates an incentive for mast builders with high tech materials to instead make a internally heavy mast, which is likely to be more structurally sound. So, it makes sense to set the tip weight (and minimum mast weight) at least as high as the natural tip weight of the lightest proven-reliable carbon mast on the market, for safety.

I believe this "carbon safety" tip weight is likely to be less that the current rules' tip weight, acts as a valid safety rule, and does not significantly stifle innovation.

Even more weight at the tip is seen by some as a way to reduce the competitive advantage of carbon masts (a very one-design concept), and it can do so by rendering the C masts as heavy as Aluminum, with higher angular inertia if tip-weights are used, but stiffer... but that stifles innovation, does nothing to ensure Al mast safety, makes boats harder to right from a capsize, and increases overall weight. Since minimum weights are best achieved with carbon in the mast and not lead at the tip, it makes the best Carbon masts require more Carbon and therefore costlier, and only marginally better than Aluminum. So, you get to spend more money for less of an advantage. This sort of rule is an abomination because it makes people spend *more* money to get a competitive boat, and it stifles innovation by causing masts to be designed to a weight rule instead of designed to best use of materials.

Instead of mandating an Aluminum-mast tip weight, it would be better to either outlaw Carbon (the "level playing field" or "one-design" approach), or lighten the tip weight to levels appropriate for C (not Al) mast safety (the "safe innovation" approach). The F16 is an innovative class, which would be best served by the latter.

--Glenn

Isn't that pretty much where we are at the moment? The tip weight is already below that of a typical Alu mast, and based on limited information available, seems to be a little above what can safely be done with carbon.

Paul