Some Aussie views on F16 proposed rules/amendments. We wanted to try and put together something that was constructive and would be useful in conveying the general thoughts of a group. Most of the people included do not have time to log on every day / week so as a group we wanted to ensure our views were heard and counted in the votes over the coming weeks. A few people have yet to respond so we expect to add a few to this number over the coming weeks as / when voting resumes.



The most important factor is to have a class Formula that allows us to race the F18 on equal time. The second most important issue is to ensure the rules are set to ensure the cost of a competitive boat is less than an F18. Finally, we look beyond the current environment and ensure performance advantages can not be gained by $$$ but be gained through better functional design and boat handling.



The current key issues being debated are below. Following now are brief notes regarding other issues we believe need to be raised. These have been forwarded to Wouter for future discussion, as he believes appropriate:

- Limited Grandfathering of all boats to 2 years

- Minimum Tip weight on all Masts (Carbon / Alloy) - As per Wouter comments on the F16 site, there is a performance advantage with a carbon mast on handicap under the some of the ratings. There is an advantage using a Carbon stick with less weight at the critical point (extremity of boat) hence reduced oscillation. This is the biggest single cost issue for the class. We all agree we want carbon masts and do not want to ban them however we would like to see initially the performance advantage removed by having a tip weight on all masts of 8.4kgs. Looking to the future, Carbon may be the way forward, hopefully. Then the class can graduate that way by reducing the tip weight when the majority of the fleet has masts that are lighter than the proposed tip weight. However hopefully with a minimum tip weight on all mast at this stage there will be no performance difference just a personal preference of black or alloy. This is a current rule used by the Tornado. It is calculated by a rigged mast being supported horizontally at the base point and the weight taken at the max hoist height of the mast. With a total boat weight and a tip weight there is no advantage of Carbon, just personal preference which is what we all want. We proposed a tip weight of 8.4kgs as it is about 100gms lighter than a tip weight on an alloy mast for a Taipan.



- Max correct weights on boards and boat weight - 10kg for platform ready to

sail and 7kg maximum for boards

- Hydrofoils, ban or not?? - Do we follow F18 and A-Class and ban them? Need to determine what is a hydrofoil. Curved boards, rudder tips that act to hold the stern in the water??

- Max Beam 2.5m, no special allowances for wings - compares to current F16 rule which only measure hull beam plus 1 wing meaning that we could have 18footer style wings on the F16s with a very narrow beam. Eg. 1 metre hull beam and therefore 4metre wing span.

- Increase Spi Size, 18.5sqm - Due to the overall increased weight of boat from 100kg to 110kg

the class still needs to maintain its performance alongside the F18. An increase of 17.5m2 to 18.5m2 would be feasible, but this would have to be confirmed against Texel ratings. Can you do the calculations and get back to us as a group. We understand the idea was to create a spi that could be used both 1up and 2up, however we would prefer to see a spi that suits 2 up and then enable the 1ups to experiment and determine what is the appropriate spi size for them. Just like the skiffs. They are open however they all find an appropriate size.

- Max Size on Rudder Pintles/gudgeons from the stern of the boat. A distance of 50mm would be adequate. This would stop people artificially lengthening their boat be moving the rudders a foot behind the stern (see 12 and 14 foot skiffs).

- Mast Height. Reduce to 8.5m. This is current height of the majority, 99% of boats that fit into the F16 concept. It is best to minimise the cost or perceived cost of "bigger is better" and ensure the current base of boats can be maintained as a viable F16. In Australia the entrenched design is the Taipan with the sloop configuration and only adding a spinnaker will ensure a fleet of Taipans can race under F16 in Australia or Internationally. Moving to a higher mast height has compressional issues, I think we can debate this all day. The Tornado went through a period with a number of breakages of masts when they converted to kites. This was partially due to the mast not supporting a Spi, hence a majority are now using an untappered Hobie Mast.

We should learn from the Tornado experience. Also, an F18 is 9.1m, we are an F16, shorter, lighter and narrower, why should be have a similar mast height?



- Total Weight - Agree with Helen Goodall's proposal, but amend slightly to 99kg (1-up) and 103kg (2-up)excluding spinnaker gear. The Taipan currently is 102kg sloop rig and the extra 1kg allows for boats putting on additional equipment such as self-tacking jibs. We propose the Cat-rig minimum at 99kg to allow for them to race with a standard mast not the light sections that we have seen used in Australia. These are not suitable for a spinnaker. Spinnakers on catamarans are undergoing a huge amount of development (led by the Tornado and now the F18) and ideal set-ups have not been established. A provisional 5 to 7kg may need to be added to boat to run a spinnaker, but rather than setting minimum weights now for whole set-up it would prudent to set minimum weight without spinnaker gear and review weight situation to include spinnaker gear in 1 or 2 years time.



List of equipment that would be excluded and form the spinnaker set-up would

include (this is not exhaustive as there are a number of different set-ups

currently deployed but just a start):

- spinnaker itself

- halyards, sheet ropes, retrieval lines, tack lines

- spinnaker ratchets and pulleys

- spinnaker pole and all attachments on pole

- spinnaker bags and/or chutes



- Spinnaker Pole Measurement. Keep current ruling the same as F18. No reason to change the status quo. To avoid confusion publish a list of pole measurements for current classes. Unless there is a valid reason to change it, why. Why have the F18 class not changed it...



Spinnaker Size Increase & Measurement. Don't agree with the proposed formula, keep the current formula (CSPI = SF x (SL1 + SL2)/4 + [(SMG – SF/2) x 2/3 x (SL1 + SL2)/2]). It does not work if you use the same numbers and different mid girth, and hence you can add more area and it is not considered. Even through under the current area 75% has been deemed as right, if you can add extra area and it not be accounted for then you will even if the shape is not optimal as it has moved to 75% at present. Elliot T is looking at this one as well.



Performance Equalisation..



Delete all reference. One Main, Jib and Spi size. The only performance equalisation should be a minimum tip weight on all masts.



AUS 259 - David Elliott – QLD State President

AUS 129 – Andrew Collins – NSW State President

AUS ### - Russell Denholm – VIC State President, Current National President

AUS XXX – Phil Edwards – SA State President

AUS 099 – James Cole

AUS 105 – Kez Stevens

AUS XXX – Simon McKeon

AUS 166 – Michael Cook

AUS 0** - James Gillett

AUS 147 – Andrew Williams

AUS 231 - Daniel Van Kerkhof

AUS 089 – Paul & Aimee Van Kerkhof

AUS 075 – Steve Vine

AUS ### - Dennis Baker

AUS 175 – Rob Wilson

AUS 062 – Antony Edwards

AUS 035 – Mark Phillips

AUS ### - James Sage

AUS 007 – Ian Marcovitch

AUS 257 – Steve Breadon

AUS 060 – Mike Edwards

AUS 115 - Kevin Kay

AUS 233 - Brian Medlow

AUS 056 – Richard Hansen

AUS 114 – Chris Cairns

AUS ### - Mark Griffiths

AUS 191 – Mark Adams

AUS 103 – Ryan Graham

AUS 16# - Steve Howe

Your position on Weight and Mast height is too solid for a reasonable person to ignore. I am happy we had the opportunity to debate the issue; I think it may have cleared the air so that the new rules could be accepted by all without reservation as a viable method to keep boat/rigging costs under control. That is the over riding factor in the change of my position.



Therefore, In the interest of class unity I will be voting with you on limiting the Mast height to 8.5 meters, and increasing the minimum weight…



Bob Hall

Firstly grandfathering any boats to 2 years means as Im sure you know that all boats will have to comply completely to the F16 rules.. This means the Tiapan 4.9 will no longer be a boat that complies in 2 years..



Wouldnt weights being added to a tip of a mast increase the stress at the areas you dont wish? Willing to see more mast tip breakages?



We discussed banning foils at the start of designing the F16 rules.. Then the general agreement was.. Dont ban.. Reason they havent been shown to work consistently in any class.. A total ban would mean the Stealth F16 would need to be redesigned..



wings.. Hmmm... Having sailed 12s, I14, 16teen, 18teens and Javelins.. Experience showns that a cat is far far far far easier to sail to its limit than a skiff hull..Yes an 18teen will hold a classic Tornado BUT only the best crews will hold the T .. Im talking professional crews that sail every day have good budgets and are the worlds best crews.. Now Im willing to bet none of the "Aussie F16 group" has anyone with the skills needed to do this feat.. (I know, I dont know you but having sailed one of the last super 18teens I know the abilities needed to stay upright).. If we look at building a F16 configured as a 16teen foot skiff.. Then the VYC yardstick shows the F16 (cat al la T4.9 at 74 which you should know!!) the equivalant 16teen foot skiff is 84.. Putting this into perspective 10% slower!! Now the 16teen that conforms to the F16 rules would be a LOT less sail area.. So expect 15+% slower per hour around the course.. In effect IF anyone decided to build a skiff to the F16 sail rules .. They would find..

1. they are underpowered

2. they would need to have crew skills that only the top few Olympic+ crews would handle..

3. They would be generally slower than the the more inexperienced F16 crew ..

Knowing all this is it problem?



spinacker size... Its the luff length that is important NOT the area.. Ask any skiffie...



Gudgeons.. Obviously you have never sailed a skiff.. The reason for the outriggers is to increase the length between the plate and the rudder.. This isnt to increase boat length BUT to make the boat more controllable.. Ok.. lets get back to basics.. The 12 footer has a hull length 12 Ft (3.7 meter) foot long and a pole 14+ foot (4.3 meter) in front of the stem.. The I14 iis 4.3 meter long and has a pole that is 2.7 meters in length.. The F16 has effectively a 0.8 meter pole on a 16 foot (5 m ) hull.. Skiffs are twitchy!! A small movement in rudder means the boat literally jumps.. Increasing the distance between the plate and the rudder means the helm is smoother.. From experience a very small movement 0.5 cm (0.25 inches) may mean up to 20 degree change in boat direction. Now ask yourself.. Are T4.9s super twitchy or smooth and balanced in the helm? If they are balanced and smooth they increasing the plate-rudder would make the helm sluggish.. Why ban things that makes the boat slower..



As for mast height.. My boat has a 9 meter mast.. An A cat have 9 meter masts.. Because you have decided to purchase a T4.9 means you have decided to purchase an 8.5 meter rig.. But if you had been more creative you may have purchased a BIM 16 which has a 9 meterr rig.. I had an 18teen with its big rig standing 40 foot above the keel..Not once did I break the tip.. Guess Im a legend or perhaps the rigger was smarter...Whatever the F16 rules limit the pull height.. As this is the real stress point we have limited the tip stress already.. (apart form adding weights as your already suggested we do)



Finally..

It would appear your committee is the T4.9 group and not the F16 class committee... But who is quibling about misrepresentation...

Andrew,



Welcome to the class forum and thank you for post and e-mails, they have all been spread to the class officials. The class is discussing the topics raised by you and will get back to you on them.



I would also like to acknowledge you for your enthousiasm and passion in relation to the Formula 16 class and the Australian continent.



Surely the Australian sailing scene rightfully earns the admiration of the sailing world. For any class to make it there is knowning that she can make it anywhere.



Without disclosing to much I can already say that some points put forward in your post have already been met.



For example the Performance Equalisation rule was voted out of the F16 rule set



And the current F16 designs, by name Stealth F16, Taipan 4.9 and Bim F16 are offered at considerable less costs than the current F18 designs. Even the most expensive F16 is still 15 % cheaper than a F18.



While the wheels of the class organisation turn I must ask for a little more time till we fully adres the other points of your post. Such a delay is the least that is required in order to present your post with a proper reply that it deserves.



With kind regards,



Wouter Hijink



Chairman F16 class