I hope so. IMO, they are critical to our success, or failure.

The real question is "should commercial builders have a vote", and if yes, how many?

At least one, probably more.

Just incase someone cares. I voted against ballot 2 (about the centreboards) because I don't like clauses a) or c). I agree with the sentiment, disagree with the wording, hence the negative vote. It matters little though, looks like the vote will go through anyway.

I hate being pedantic but you'd better define banana boards and fore and aft movement because all boards will flex under load turning them into a banana shape, and all boards will move fore and aft in their cases, certainly with arrangements like taipans.

I think it may've been better to state what is allowed rather than what is banned...I like the clause in many of the model yacht rules that says either something like "...if it is not specifically allowed, it is banned..." or alternatively, "...if it is not specifically banned, it is allowed...". One sweeping statement like that covers a lot of area, particularly if you apply it to each item of the boat, ie. the former could be good for centreboards (where there are many variations available, only a small portion of which the class wants to allow), while the latter could be applied to hulls (where there isn't much you can do anyway, but ppl can still play with ideas/variations).

Just something to think about.

Whether the sailors like it or not the builders have a very large influence in the class business (personally I'm okay with that). Interestingly enough this is irrespectably of whether they have voting rights or not.

Afterall, class officials are nothing more then well intending sailors holding pieces of paper with words on them. The builders control all the actual hardware and marketshares. Knowing this, does anybody want to pick a fight with the builders ?

Therefor rule number 1 for class officials is to NEVER EVER risk a mutiny among the builders. Even risking it is very damaging to the class as a whole as it directly decreases the status and perception of authority of the class and its leading officials.

Rule number 2 is to learn rule 1 again !

Doing the F16 class business is a whole lot of politics and background lobbying (before moving to holding a public vote).

Personally I feel the builders have an effective vote by supporting a proposed changes from the start or not. When they are not SUFFICIENTLY supportive then the GC must move to not vote on the alteration. This has been my personal experience and for this reason there is no difference whether the builders have an official vote or not. In praxis they always have and it is a massively important one at that.

In the past I always gave the builders 1 vote equal to a normal class member; the is no reason to public favour them over actual sailors. But having said that, I made damn sure I had their full support before I entered a public vote.

Wouter

I voted in favour of ballot 2 but I too am less then convinced with the actuall wording. However I found these objections to be too small to vote against the rule.



This goes directly against the fundamental principle of the F16 class and therefor this syntax can not and should not be applied. The fundamental principle is "total freedom of design and modification under the limit of general quality in racing"

It seems to me that as good as all F16 class members are in favour of modifying and adding the rules, but there is unease over the actual proposed wordings.

It is my believe that relatively small adjustement to the proposed modifications can result in complete support by all involved parties, without altering the intended goals.

I would like to propose to the GC to investigate whether this can be adressed. This is a repeat of an early request of mine that was give in private.

Wouter

On-line voting now closed.

I need to correct some of my statements in my earlier posting.

It has been brought to my attention that some statements of mine were incorrect. I rechecked the disputed points and indeed I was incorrect. I'm refering to the statements :




This part appears to be incorrect.

The F18/F20 class rules only state that the mainsail area shall enclose the mast area. No further definitions are given. Later in the F18 rules it is said :

"The method of calculation of sail area shall be as defined in th 1999 formula 18 measurement form and measurement certificate."

I was assured today that the F18 measurement form does indeed define the WHOLE mast area times 0.5 is to be included in the overall mainsail area.

For me this is enough to accept the fact that I was in error earlier.

Source : ftp://ftp2.f18-international.org/finterna/2003_F18_Class_rules.pdf


2nd error :



The statement is only partically correct. Texel indeed calculates sailarea as indicated by me earlier but SCHRS (ISAF) does not. I check the 2007 version of the SCHRS system today and it clearly defines the mast area, which is to be included in the mainsail area, as :

Area of Mast = (Total Length x Perimeter / 2) m2

Clearly this definition proofs the error in my earlier statement.

source : http://www.schrs.com/index.php?page=measurement


This ends my posts setting the facts straight. We also had an interesting discussion about the rule change today, read my follow on post for more details.

Wouter

A few befriended sailors and F16 sailors discussed the finer points of the rule change in more depth.

The earlier posting correcting some mistake on my side is a direct result of that.

With these corrections 2 of my counterpoints have fallen away. A new appreciation of my stance is therefor in order.

I have/had two remaining counterpoints to the proposed rule change and again I state that I'm in agreement with the intention to change the rule ! I just disagreed with the a detail of the new rule.

In fact my contention focussed entirely on whether to use the full length of the mast or just the 8.100 mtr measured that is the maximal allow luff length a F16 mainsail may reach under full downhaul tension.

The two remaining points are :

-1- The new proposed rule links up several rules that were fully independent before. In the past changing your mast length didn't affect your allowed sail area in any way; with the new rule it does, albeit in small terms. I strongly favour maintaining the original orthogonality (mutual independence) of the class rules unless absolutely necessary. For reasons of clarity, maximum freedom of design, minimizing unintended consequences.

-2- From the start the F16 class was setup to only rule on real issues based on hardnosed science. It is scientifically well understood and without a doubt that a leading edge WITHOUT a restoring curve behind it (= the sail cloth) will NOT produce any benefits (= forward drive). Reasons for this are twofold : first the leading edge (by itself) has a NEGATIVE angle of attack with respect to the apparent wind as such it will produce negative lift which is directly translated into negative drive, meaning drag. Secondly, without the sail cloth behind the leading egde completing the wing curve, the airflow over the leading egde will stall because of a to abrupt change in airpressure. The resulting macro turbulance and its drag addition will totally negate any benefical suction zones. In effect; a mast profile rotated to act as a leading egde to the whole mainsail will produce no benefical drive on the parts that are not followed by the sail itself.


Interestingly enough I feel that both points remain valid and that I've been able to explain them sufficiently in the discussion.

I feel the others found no faults with these points. The discussion then focussed on another consideration in the discussion and that is how sailing organisations like ISAF, builders and sailmakers prefer the sail area to be determined.

It was argued that between these groups a concensus was formed over time that the mast area should be determined by multiplying the overall length by the halve of the circumference. Apparently the important cat classes like F18, Tornado and A-cats have accepted that concensus and as a result it will be in our interest as F16 class to do so too.

I can personally find no fault with that reasoning.

So the question now becomes which of the two conflicting perspectives should be weighted more heavily.

The engineer in me says :"my perspective", the former class official in me says :"their perspective"

....

After taking a little time to contemplate this dillema I feel that I should weight the analysis and the conclusions of the current acting Governing Council more heavily. Afterall they did confer with all named parties (especially the really important ones) and it is they who need to implement the F16 growth and policy over the coming years. It is best to have them make the decision that they feel will allow them to be succesful at this.

Also I now feel that my remaining points are by themselves too weak to continue this discussion. Point 2 is not important when all F16's suffer from the same drawback. That leaves only point 1 against the drawbacks of rowing against the (ISAF, F18, Tornado, A-cat) current. That is not enough in my view.

So I desist my opposition and I must say that I feel that the GC has convinced me of the merits of their proposal (c.q. compromise).

Considering the overall situation, it is the best that can be done.

And that is that.

Wouter

Tornado have a one-design mast now, so mast surface area is not taken into consideration when measuring? With the alu mast there was some limitation on what the crossection of the mast should be, but surface area has not been an issue with regards to total sail area calculations. The T class rules are much too "one design" to allow large differeneces in mast crossections. At least as far as I remember the class rules.