Your decision.

I have now also created another forum when persons details who register will be moved once validated. This forum is NOT indexable or seachable via the search engines and is NOT viewable by the general public.

To those people who wish to vote in the ballots but do not wish to use the online voting facility:

You may vote by post. To do so simply cut and paste the following into a Word processor document:

[color:"blue"] Ballot nr 1:
In the rules it states:
1.12 The mainsail

1.12.1 The Mast & mainsail area may not be larger than 15 sq. metres.

1.12.2 The Mainsail luff length may not be longer than 8.1 metre (= 8100 mm).

Where :

Mast & mainsail area = (mainsail area + ½ * mast area)

Mainsail area = all of the mainsail surface area that is outside of the mast while sailing.

Mast area = mainsail luff length multiplied by the circumference of the mast.

Mainsail luff length is defined as : the distance measured alongside the (straight) mast from the
highest point of a normally hoisted mainsail towards the lowest point reached
when the downhaul is used.
The F16 Governing Council Proposal :


1.12 The mainsail


1.12.1 The Mast & mainsail area may not be larger than 15 sq. metres.

1.12.2 The Mainsail luff length may not be longer than 8.1 metre (= 8100 mm).


Where :

Mast & mainsail area = (mainsail area + mast area)

Mainsail area = all of the mainsail surface area that is outside of the mast while sailing, measured in accordance with ISAF measurement rules.

Mast area = mast length *maximum circumference of the mast * 0.5


Ballot nr 2:

F16 Governing Council Proposal to add:

1.6.4 For the avoidance of doubt, daggerboards/centerboards will conform to the following :

a) Curved/’Banana’ boards will not be allowed.
b) Assymetrical cross-section profile boards will be allowed.
c) Fore/aft movement of the boards when in the down position will not be allowed.
d) End fences/horizontal appendages below the waterline will not be allowed. The board shall be capable of removal, without tools, via the upper opening of the case.
e) There will be no limitation on the daggerboard/centerboard length


Ballot nr 3:

In the rules it states:
Prologue: The Formula 16 class
The Formula 16 class for high performance beach catamarans is a mildly restricted class, reserved for sport catamarans that may be sailed either doublehanded or singlehanded. The designs are of amateur or professional construction and are intended for racing on elapsed time with respect to other Formula 16 designs, as well as Formula 18 class designs.

F16 Governing Council Proposal :

Prologue: The Formula 16 class
The Formula 16 class for high performance beach catamarans is a mildly restricted class, reserved for sport catamarans that may be sailed either doublehanded or singlehanded without time adjustment. The designs are of amateur or professional construction and are intended for racing on elapsed time with respect to other Formula 16 designs.
[/color]

Now add either of the comments Agree or Disagree to each of the ballots according to your view.

Now add your details: Contact information, Boat details incl Sail No

You may then mail the completed ballots to:

The F16 Governing Council
c/o Catamaranparts.nl
Voltastraat 5
2041 CK Zandvoort

to arrive no later than 25th July 2007

I have no doubt why the following was proposed:
1.6.4 For the avoidance of doubt, daggerboards/centerboards will conform to the following :

a) Curved/’Banana’ boards will not be allowed.
b) Assymetrical cross-section profile boards will be allowed.
c) Fore/aft movement of the boards when in the down position will not be allowed.
d) End fences/horizontal appendages below the waterline will not be allowed. The board shall be capable of removal, without tools, via the upper opening of the case.
e) There will be no limitation on the daggerboard/centerboard length


But I'm wondering if the requirement- "The board shall be capable of removal, without tools, via the upper opening of the case."
Might "disallow" some hinged centerboards which otherwise would be legal in every respect??

Just a thought-- Are the Mosquito/Isotope/etc. centerboards all able to be removed "without tools" via the upper opening of the case??
<img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
Kirt

Mosquitos have daggerboards...Stingrays however have retracting centreboards like a tornado.

Can the wording be changed to allow retracting centreboards?

But centerboards are removable via the upper opening if designed well. Usually the pivot pin (a piece of tubing) slides down two slots in the centerboard well.

I'm not aware of any existing cats, that would otherwise fit into the F16 box rule, that need tools to remove their pivoting centreboards - or that cannot be removed via the deck opening of the case. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Hi all,

Cobras would fit in F16 rule I think, they have pivoting centreboards. No idea of if they can come out the top of case with out tools <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />. Up to date I am not realy aware of them wanting to participate in F16 racing, but a number have spinnakers in Victoria and there is one Cobra in Europe.

So maybe the wording needs looking at to save problems in the future <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />. That is of course if the proposers want to and it got passed. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Cobra centreboards can be removed without tools (and it's via the top of the case).

** BUMP **

And a reminder that voting online finishes at midnight GMT on 27th June 2007

Hi all,

was about to head away from computer access with work for a few days. Then remembered had to vote before 27th.

So treat this as a reminder and don't let the rest of this post put you off. I am sure it is just me.

Is it just me <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> or is it difficult to find your way to the place to Vote. Took me a couple of looks. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Just looking at the number of voters, I was concerned that the difficulty may keep the voting numbers low. Or is it just me <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />.

No criticsm of Scooby's efforts in setting all this up intended. Greatly appreciate these efforts. I am sure it is difficult for people that have grown up with computers and use them every day to understand, how computer challenged some of us are <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />.

But if I managed it, I am sure others that read this will be able.

Everybody register and VOTE !

It was demanded that the voting was to be online and accessible to all, so now make use of that won right.

That includes also those who have bought building plans, are still building or have modified boats.

Don't for one second feel that only the top sailors or very vocal class members have a right to vote. EVERYBODY has a right to vote and personally I also think that voting is very close to being compulsory.

Wouter

I shall make no secret of my opposition to accepting ballot number 1, although I did wait to the very last day to make it public knowlegde.

Ballot number 1 is the proposal were the maximal allowed area of the mainsail + mast is redefined.




I feel that a better proposal would have been to redefine the rule :

"Mast area = mainsail luff length multiplied by the circumference of the mast"

to

"Mast area = the max allowed mainsail luff length of 8.100 mtr multiplied by the circumference of the mast."


This would have garanteed that all current mainsails would still be compliant with the new rules. No exceptions are possible, neither in theory nor praxis.

Also it would have kept our mainsails at the maximal effective surface area. The part of the mast below the boom and therefor without a sail behind it is not in any way effective surface area. It does not produce any drive except negative drive (=drag) and therefor should not be considered part of the engine.

This line of reasoning was a main criterium when founding the class and composing the first rule sets. Only items that are unmistakenly performance enhancing must be ruled upon. No gut feelings or pseudo scientific believes should be implementing in the F16 rule set.

Interestingly enough. The F18 class and F20 also do not include the WHOLE mast area in their limits only the part that has a sail behind it. I think the F16 class should stay with that principle and not go with the A-cat setup where extremely low booms are the norm rather then the exception. Low booms simple don't work well on 2-up boats. This was one reason why in the past the rules were explicetly written to not enclude any items below the boom as to avoid any stimulating of unfavourable setups. It was intended to stimulate keeping the boom sufficiently high of the trampoline.

Another argument was that we didn't want to cause a split between the surface area determined by the rating systems of Texel and ISAF (schrs) and the F16 class rules. A thing that will happen with the proposed modification. This is because neither Texel nor SCHRS regard the portion of the mast that is not followed by the sail itself to be effective sailarea. This while the proposed modification actually do consider is effective sailarea.

Therefor I believe the proposed modifications actually do not reduce confusion by actually maintain it, albeit of a different kind. That, in my opinion, is enough to vote against the proposed rule change. Not because I disagree with modifying this particular rule but because the proposed change is insufficiently better. Especially since a much better modification is available.

If this proposal is accepted I will put in a counterproposal along the lines of what is given earlier in this posting.

Wouter

Very nice Wouter. Way to go! - wait until the last day for online voting!! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

What is the matter with you? If you've got a logical, properly reasoned point about a proposal that's up for consideration why wait to the very last moment????

With what you're now doing - despite all your bluster about the good of the class BLAH BLAH BLAH... You're now proposing that once this rule amendment is voted on (and possibly passed) you'll open it up to debate AGAIN by proposing yet another rule amendment?

For chrissakes Wouter, can't you just let go and let the class determine it's own future? STOP MEDDLING!!!!

Rant over. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

PS you'll note this post is by me as an F16 owner and NOT as secretary.

Timing of posts is essential isn't it <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Wouter wrote:


While our class secretary wrote in the first post:


I've searched trough the rules again, and I can not find the definition of who is eligible to vote. Am I too sloppy when searching, or? Is voting really open to plan owners (defined as virtual boat owners perhaps?).
Personally I think only boat owners should have a say.

3. Membership
Any catamaran enthusiast may apply for membership of the Formula 16 Association of (Insert country/region) and be granted one of the following forms of membership following payment of the prescribed membership fee.
a) Types of membership
i) Full Membership is available to persons involved in Formula 16 class racing.
ii) Supporting Membership shall be available to those who do not actively race the F16 but would like to support the class and participate in social events. This may include sail makers, builders, designers or supporting friends and family interested in promoting and participating in class activities.
iii) Life Membership shall be available to those in recognition of exceptional past service. The AGM shall have the power to award life membership by a simple 75% majority.


Only Full members and Life Members may vote in ballots. Therefore it seems to be an inherent requirement that the member not only owns an F16 but races it. If a person has purchased a set of plans and is in the process of building an F16 or F16s then I think that the F16GC would need to rule on that individuals elegibility to vote. On the assumption that the individual is genuinely building an F16, it is unlikely that the F16GC would rule against that person voting since they have a genuine interest in the future of the class. Equally, if a person has merely purchased plans but has not yet commenced building or has made little or no progress over a considerable period of time, it is likely that persons voting rights would be removed or disallowed.

This is only my take on the 'spirit of the rule' and a full council meeting may view an individual situation differently.

At present, of course, noone is a full member of the F16 Association so for this first WGM at Zandvoort and associated voting we are accepting votes from all persons who own F16s or are in the process of building one. From 2008 we WILL enforce the clauses of the Constitution.

Two reasons for this ;

First, like this everybody had ample occassion to make up their own minds about the proposed changes without any danger form my "meddling". I couldn't do it weeks ago as then you would have claimed that I was influencing people before they had a change to work things out themselfs "=meddling". No matter what I do (or did) I will get blamed for some wrong doing anyway.

Secondly :

Who says that my comments hadn't been put up for consideration earlier.

If that is what you think then my question is why my comments haven't reached you 2 months ago. Don't blame me for internal communication failings inside the governing council. And since it is now clear that that route didn't work very well, answer me this. What other route do I have as a normal class member (not an official in any way) to reintroduce my comments ?

Exactly, the forum ; in combo with the method deviced for processing idea's and modifications. It was stated precisely that established proposals could only be "voted in" or "voted out". Amending the wording was not a possibility, neither was cancelling a vote.

The current GC constructed this framework and I'm only using the pathways that are available to me at this time. Don't blame me for it; if anything it is not my fault.

And I certainly don't appreciate the fact that I get yelled at by you in this respect. I took the only possible route that was available to me.

Wouter


P.S. This is not the complete picture of downsides and why I feel the proposed modification is less then attractive. If desired then I'm willing to make a rigurous document out of it. One that clearly identifies all aspects and how the modification could be worded better. Right now I have to do several hours of fuzzy logic control design (again)

Maybe I should take those statements back as I'm not an F16 class official in any shape or form so my comments in this may well be void of any meaning.

Wouter

Could the committee please clarify
"Full Membership is available to persons involved in Formula 16 class racing"

Since there are a few who race their F16 in open fleets as opposed to F16 events is this classified as "Formula 16 racing"?

Stewart

Stewart,

The interpretation that the Governing Council are placing on this rule, under the 'spirit of the rule' proviso, is that a full member will be an F16 owner (or owner currently in genuine build period) who races his F16 whether it be in open class or F16 only racing (in the case of a not yet built boat we have to rely on the owners word of intention to race).

In practice, we will be relying on National Associations to monitor an individuals right to membership and voting since they will be best placed to know what an individual owner does.

Are commercial builders members??