BIMARE announced that the first production Javelins 16 will be on sale in April 2003. The new boat will feauture wave piercing hulls and will be fitted with a slightly reinforced version of the 9,00 m RIBA carbon mast which fits the Javelin A and the same 12,50 sqm main of its bigger brother, as the latest version of the BIM 16.

The Javelin 16 will be offered only in the UNIRIG configuration. As optional the boat (with a conspicuos reduction of its price) will be offered with a 9,00 m aluminium mast. Besides it will come ex factory with a 17/17,5 sqm spinnaker and a new - BIMARE made - mid pole snuffer.

The price of the standard version (carbon mast, spinnaker and spinnaker kit - snuffer included) will be at least 30% lower of the price of most F18s in Europe (40% for the optional alumunium mast version), and competitive with the price of the other aluminium mast fitted F16s.

Therefore, according to my opinion, if the reason to ban the carbon mast from the F16 rule is PRICE concern, this cannot be retained anymore as a valid argument.

Don't forget the SAFETY advantage of a carbon mast over an aluminum mast

This is great news for the F-16HP class. Bimare will produce AFFORDABLE, well built Jav 16s just like their great Jav2 18footer.



The T 4.9 cost as much as a Bimare Javelin 2 and maybe more after adding a chute, so the Bimare Javelin 16 (BIM 16)should be a bargain! Maurizio pointed out that the boat would be sold at 30% less than the F-18s. The Taipan 4.9 with spin cost about the same as a F-18, so the new BIM 16 should cost less than the T 4.9. This is very significant and should help the F-16HP class grow much faster.



As far as the 9m mast, I am sure that Bimare has spent a great deal of time and money developing this new F-16HP (they announced it in July of this year) with a 9m mast. My point is, they have built their boat to work with a 9m mast and now the F-16HP guys are considering lowering the max mast height for their class. This seems to be very convienient for the T 4.9 owners in the class! Don't change the rules, after a new boat has been developed under the old one!!!!!!!!!!! This will stiffle the classes' progress.



Another point to consider is that with Bimare's success with the F-18HT class, they could start their own class and outnumber the current USA F-16HP class very quickly, if their design were outlawed. This is a reasonable assumption, based on their growth in the F-18HT class. I think that this consideration should be reviewed by the F-16HP class with high priority.



I look forward to more information on Bimare's 16, as my son is looking for a new boat, after we recently had a bad experience with a Austrailian Flyer A-Cat. This Javelin 16 should fit the bill perfectly and affordably.



Steve Jones

Maurizio-

Sounds very interesting and I look forward to seeing one! I wonder why you persisted in the UNIRIG configuration for this class where all the other sloop boats are outfitted with jibs and to not design/produce a boat with this available seems to "slant" it to a solo person boat only? Was this your intent? When can we see photos and/or expect to see some over here?



Regards,

Kirt

Steve-

You seem to be biased against the Taipan (or is it AHPC in particular - re your reference to the Australian Flyer, which swept the "A" Worlds by the way).

As US Class head I welcome any and all new F 16HP boats and look forward to this new offerring from BIM, built specifically to the class rules (except for the provision for a jib- Which in the F 18HT class is not an issue but the original intent of this class was to have boats that could go "either way" easily and be competitive more or less with each other, which differs greatly from the F 18HT's). BIM seems to be (I can only go on the information in Maurizio's post since I have not seen or heard any more about this boat but have seen/sailed with the current BIM 16) offerring a boat maximized under our rules for one-up sailing and not amenable to sailing as a sloop, which is their perogative. But to compare that boat specifically to a T 4.9 / Stealth / Spitfire / etc. designed and sold to go sloop or solo is not really comparing apples to apples IMO. A Taipan uni (which can be ordered) is conspicuously less expensive than a sloop and faster in "uni mode" than a sloop w/ the jib merely left off (less weight slightly and different cut mainsails).

So please, let's keep things positive here and not get into the pissing contest some of the other forums seem to revel in. All the builders in our class build good strong boats and ALL the other CURRENT boats (Stealth, Taipan, Spitfire, etc.) have 8.5 m masts whether CF or Al so the "mast rule" you allude to only affects the BIM (a boat that is not yet in production and could be changed easily leaving no CURRENT class members disadvantaged.) Maurizio points to CF as being "safer"- I presume he's referring to the ease in righting, well, it's easier to right a boat with a 8.5m CF mast than one with a 9m CF mast all other things being equal so limiting mast height could be "defended" as a safety issue. I'm just trying to point out there are generally more than one ways to "view" an issue. I'm personally okay with leaving the length at 9m but we are a class run organization so majority rules but I appreciate your opinion and I agree the more manufacturers we have competing with each other the better the boats/rigs/sails/cost will become FOR US (the sailors)!!

And we will all win!



Regards,

Kirt

Kirt,

First of all I am a good friend and an old customer of Mr Petrucci, but I don't work for BIMARE.

Anyway I can tell you the reason why BIMARE chose to stay with the UNIRIG configuration and not to build a sloop F16. BIMARE started to build catamarans 25 years ago. Its first design was an A class. In the late 70's all A class cats had already adopted the UNIRIG configuration. Mr Petrucci liked so much this concept that since then he never produced a sloop catamaran. He started (together with other Europeans boatyards) 3 UNIRIG Formula classes: the F20 in 1989 (20' x 10', 37.7 ' mast, 235 sqft main and 258 sqft spinnaker), the F 16 in 1991 and lately the F18HT in 1995.

The pattern of BIMARE production are:

UNIRIG configuration, low weight and affordable prices.

This is the reason why you'll never see a BIMARE made F18.

Maurizio

The F16 is an infant class at the moment though it is rapidly gaining interest worldwide with new boats being developed. There has been a recent review of the box rules with a number of proposed amendments. These include lower mast height to 8.5m and a tip weight to equalise the performance between Aluminium and Carbon masts.



The Taipan 4.9 is only potential F16 class with significant worldwide numbers (260 boats plus in Australia, US, Europe and SE Asia) with the Stealth and Bimare only having a small number of boats on the water. To see the success of the F16 concept there needs to be more involvement in the class development with manufacturers and more boats on the water. Taipan sailors are the best avenue of approach for this and if only 10% of the T4.9s convert to F16 you still have more boats than the Stealth and Bim combined.



Being in Australia with strong class racing in the Taipans (last Nationals had 48 sloops and 14 cat-rigs) the majority of Aussies are hesitant to upgrade their boats. Main reason is that we already have a strong fleet, and when you are on a good thing don't change it. Despite saying that there is a lot of interest in spinnakers with the new Tornado rig and the F18 starting to make inroads over here. Most owners that have moved to kites to race as a F16 against the F18 are doing so on a casual basis but will still compete as a standard Taipan at major regattas (eg Nationals and States).



The F16 with a 9m mast height and carbon masts with no weight equalisers will stop all interest in the F16 in Australia (which is grassroots at the moment) and you will end with a similar situation as what happened with the 14 foot skiffs. That was an International 14 and an Australian 14. We don't want to see a US and European F16 and an Aussie F16.



To convert a current Taipan to F16 costs approx $1,500 Aussie, but adding a carbon mast and new mainsail then you are looking at anywhere between $4,000 to $5,000 and who wants to drag around 2 rigs. One for standard and another for F16. With 260 Taipans worldwide it is best to minimise conversion cost and not alienate current owners.



Another aspect of why we are pushing for the mast tip weight is that it stops development of super-light carbon masts (which will happen when we start getting world titles with 50 or more boats) which will have a tendency to break. This leads to potential upward spiral in insurance costs. In Australia a number of insurers will not touch the A-Class at all and one sailor who has broken a carbon mast whilst sailing now has an excess larger than the cost of a new mast! This is not feasible and not the best situation in promoting the class as this can be a major annual cost.



Cheers

JC

Hello again,



Interesting stuff! Here are a couple of thoughts-



1- The Bimare 16 is often pictured being sailed by two people, so I think that a jib would not be neccessary for conversion to and from singlehander and doublehander. I don't no much more about the convertability of this new boat. I do know that the F-18HT is a doublehander and has no jib.



2-Granted there are many (200+) Taipan 4.9s worldwide, but less than 20 in the USA. Most of these Taipan 4.9s are not maxed out to the F-16HP rule and race one-design Taipan 4.9 class. The Bimare Jav 2 18 footer has sold more than twice that many in 9 months, here in the USA. I only care about the classes in the USA. With the proper pricing the Bimare will quickly outnumber the Taipans here in the USA. If the F-16HP class does not accept the Bimare 16 Javelin, then I feel sure that a new class can be organized for them! I would be willing to work hard to organize such a class, if necessary. I am sure that Bimare's USA guy, W.F. Oliver, would lend a hand in such an endeaver. The potential resources between myself and Mr. Oliver are significant. Maybe the F-18HT class would help us out? In short, it would be in the F-16HP classes' best interest to welcome the new Bimare.



3-I am VERY excited about this new boat, as the "smaller" F-18HT is just the ticket for my son. Once he grows, then we can go F-18HT or other larger cat.



Steve

Maurizio-

Thank you very much for the explanation, I think I understand now why they did not put a jib on the boat- Sort of "Company policy".

Thanks again,

Kirt

Steve,

You mentioned that you are only concerned about the class in the USA. I can assure you that the Australian guys are concerned about the class in Australia. The British are probably concerned about the class in Brtain and so on.



The fact is we all need to take a wider view of the situation and consider the class on a Global Basis.

It is not that you or I intend to sailor internationally but, managed carefully, the Global element will bring prestigue and economies of scale to the class that will attract other participants.



These participants will be in the form of not only sailors but also manufacturers and this will not only be in the USA but in every other country that has a participating fleet.



If we can put our vested interests aside and work together for a common goal WE WILL ALL BENEFIT. More participants will mean more competition and more options when it comes to a machine to sail.



Frredom of choice is a right in society and should also be a right in sailing. To be able to choose, the options must first be available.



I welcome BIMs involvement and hope that everyone can come to terms with the Rule Set when they are fine tuned so we can collectively move the F16HP Class forward in a Global endeavour.



Regards,

Phill

Hi, steve,

I'm glad to see you're interested in the class. I'm excited about the prospect of a cheaper addition.

I think you might want some clarification, though:

1. As far as uni vs. sloop, the F18ht comparison is not accurate...the f16 as a doublehanded uni loses the WHOLE sail area of the jib. I have trouble seeing a 300 lb. team being competetive in less than 8-10 kts with that significant of a redux. in sail area.

2. a) Actually, most of the T4.9's (in fact, almost all) in the U.S. have F16 chutes. We represent the current class. Ignoring us does not make sense to me.

b) I would love to see WF become involved in the class... however, he has not done so, since he quit sailing the BIM. I do not blame him for this, but it is unrealistic for you to expect him to give equal support to a class that he does not race in. If he gives Randy a boat, and gets the F16 in as a Worrell boat, then I'll concede this point to you, and wholeheartedly agree that you're right. ;-) Until then, though, the class should rely on those members it already has in the U.S. You can't ignore the Worrell and Rockstar factor of the 18ht's success. ANY boat newly chosen for the Worell will sell 20+ boats in a year, based on that alone. Brilliant marketing, but unlikely for the BIM 16.

3. As I said, I'm very excited about the new boat. I really wish they'd chosen to build a "true" doublehander, though. As far as the difference in mast height, a redux. of .5 meters is a minimal task for the factory. I don't buy that it would be a great hardship for them. Matter of fact, I believe that several of the earlier BIM 16's had shorter masts.

Thanks,

Michael Coffman

T4.9#32

Steve-

I was not trying to say the BIM could not be sailed two handed but that the F 16HP class was originally set up so that the handicap numbers of a uni rig solo sailor boat would be essentially equal to the handicap numbers of the same boat with the added sail area of a jib and a second person (which was to equal the handicap numbers of the popular F 18 class). If someone wishes to forego the jib and race doublehanded on a boat which meets the other requirements for the F 16HP class they can and they are welcome to do so. It is not an option in our class (at this time) to "add" the sail area that would be in the jib to the mainsail (and/or spinnaker) ala the F 18HT. If this were an option then one would "have to" get two separate mainsails and/or masts to be able to sail one or two up safely (as some of the F 18HT owners have proposed to do). Our class did not want to "require" someone to do any more than merely remove one sail (the jib) and related hardware to be able to safely sail (and race) the boats with one or two persons.

I (and the class) cannot control BIM, I certainly hope they wish to make the boat comply with the F 16HP rules but that is up to them. Performance, for instance, chose to modify the Inter 18 sold here in the US so it did NOT comply with the F 18 rules- Hobie chose to make the Tiger comply- Not much question which there are more of now in the US and unfortunately it has caused "issues" for F 18 sailing in the US which I would like to avoid but it's not up to me.

The "F 18HT" class you refer to is really at the moment a "Jav F 18HT class" since it's the only one readily available here in the US. It's success is attributable (IMO) to a unique design, very strong company backing and personal financial backing by WF plus some smart political moves to outbid the competition for things like the Alter Cup and Worrell 1000. IMO it is very hard for any "foreign" cat manufacturer (or actually any small domestic one like Isotope, Hardcore, Freestyle, Sea Spray, etc.) to "break into" the US market and probably requires things like WF and BIM have done to take off quickly.

In closing, let me say I truly hope BIM's intentions are to produce and promote a fully compliant F 16HP model which is comparable to the offerrings of the other F 16HP builders, as that is the intent of the "Formula" concept.

Looking forward to seeing you on one!



Kirt

Steve..

Im a totally confused by your logic...



Why bring the I14 into the equaltion? The history of I14 and 14teen foot skiffs are separate.. The Au 14 is over 104(?) years old.. The International 14 was developed in Europe and the US completely separately only 75 years ago or so.. The specs where only similar in that they both were 14 foot long.. The Au 14 was wider 6' as opposed to 5'6.. Both classes had differnet hull restrictions ie keel step height allowances minimum and maximium chine widths and sheer restrictions.. The AU 14 had 220 ft2 sail plan as opposed to 160 ft2.. Twin trap as opposed to single.. Kite size was also weighed in the 14teen footers case by 100+ ft2.. The 14teen had a mast head kit the I14 had a kite height restricted 800 mm (from memory) above the hounds ohh and mast heights were also different.. The 14 had different hull rstrictions (rise of floor, min. chine width measurements ect).. If you have a Spenser designed "Javelin" around your area they are basically an old rules International 14... Fact is an "international" 14 could almost but not quite measure as a 14.. They needed hull modifications to measure within the rules... However the quickest 14 could not have measured inside the I14 rules.. When the classes amalgamated a decade ago they compromised dropping the old I14 weight but raising the 14teen weight.. They also amalgamated the I14 and 14 hull restriction but closer to the I14 than the 14 restrictions.. Keeping the 14 rig, trap arrangement..

With the F16.. What similarities to this situation (I14) do you see?



Yes T4.9s are bigger in Au than other F16 classes.. BUT not where I come from.. Fact is no T4.9s are here..

Fact is Im also not allowed to build a foam T4.9..

Ok so you wont wish to have two rigs.. I can understand that.. Having five on the 18teen.. But a new F16 rig would have less sail power than the standard (with kite) T4.9.. Are you seriouly willing to sacrifice available your grandfathered edge in power????



As for making tip weights restrictions.. lead is cheaper than carbon..

How would you measure the "tip" weight? Or are you just weighing up the mast and adding weight because its too light?

In the situation your arguing for .. your more likely to see masts with lead weights in exactly the wrong spot for both safety and mast breakages.. Perhaps better would be a single mast rule.. Ok go build carbon/boron mast.. But if you break your out of the regatta..With an additional maximum number of sticks in a season (2?).. ie one registered stick for the season and one allowed, requested in writing to the association, if the first is replaced..Tends to make one more conservative in stick choice I have found..

Mast tip weight measured in following fashion. One end of mast placed on a solid object. Other end of mast hung from a set of scales (eg fish scales). Mast is horizontal at the time.



Most carbon masts would require up to 500gm to equalise to an Aluminium mast if lead placed at the tip of the mast.



The Tornado class uses the tip weight rule and some of their masts have anything up to a kilogram.

Below is the current Tornado rule adapted for the F16 to take account that

the Tornado rules assumes a main halyard is used.



With the mast in a horizontial position, supported at the bottom end of the

extrusion and at the bottom edge of the top measurement band, the weight

measured at the top band shall be not less than ??7.5kgs. (Proposed to be

an average of 100gms lighter than the current AHPC mast (15 mast to be

measured))



The mast shall be weighted in the following condition;



1. Running rigging and normally attached diamond rigging shall remain

attached to the mast.

2. Shrouds, forestay and trapeze wires and their shackles shall be removed

from the mast.

3. Halyards shall be fully hoisted and their tails coiled and attached to

the mast heel.

4. Sail attachment fittings shall be placed in there normal hoisted sailing

position.

This looks great. Simple and easy....



With the comments and weights currently being discussed it would only require 200gms to be added to the Stealth mast to make it compliant under the 7.4kg tip weight being proposed.



200gms is pretty easy to add structurally for Stealth to the tip when a new batch of masts are built by just increasing the reinforcing that is used for the halyard lock. (Think JC had 7.5kgd which is what we think the Average is of the AHPC Alloy mast)



That would not cause any safety issues and would be able to be concealed in the old masts easily within or as part of the plug.



It would stop, which is the purpose of the rule, "New" / one off manufactures developing lighter mast that would be a greater performance advantage and then super seed the current masts. Hence greater cost to the class and the durability issue. It's the extreme we are proposing to penalise and stop, not current designs and mast manufacturers.



We all want to see development and that is enabled but it ensures three things. Money can't buy speed, the current boats, Stealth and Taipan will not be obsolete quickly and the carbon mast can be maintained at a weight that ensures durability and insurance / breakages can be limited.



The Tornado has used the tip weight for many years and very successfully. Most masts used to carry between 300 - 400 gms. That was seen as optimal. It stopped the class trying to develop lighter mast that would be fragile in the search of reducing rig weight.



It ensured people had the flexibility to develop mast bends and profiles that suited there weight however ensured weight performance issues were maintained across the class. And therefore it was not beneficial to develop fragile/ light masts just for weight reduction.



Rule as proposed by JC.

With the mast in a horizontal position, supported at the bottom end of the

extrusion and at the bottom edge of the top measurement band, the weight

measured at the top band shall be not less than ??7.5kgs. (Proposed to be

an average of 100gms lighter than the current AHPC mast (15 mast to be

measured))



The mast shall be weighted in the following condition;



1. Running rigging and normally attached diamond rigging shall remain

attached to the mast.

2. Shrouds, forestay and trapeze wires and their shackles shall be removed

from the mast.

3. Halyards shall be fully hoisted and their tails coiled and attached to

the mast heel.

4. Sail attachment fittings shall be placed in there normal hoisted sailing

position.

Maurizio,



I also understand that reasoning and really have no problem with that. But why does bimare intend to use the 12,5 sq.mtr. mainsail and not the 15 % bigger F16 mainsail for their Javelin 16 design ? Surely in the same line of thinking the bimare Javelin 16 will be faster and better suited to double handed sailing as a result ?



Wouter

Wouter,

in order to avoid misunderstandings, the Javelin 16 is to be fitted with a 12,50 sqm A class main, as the old BIM 16, giving a total surface, mast included, of 13,94 sqm or 150 sqft.

Are you saying that the Javelin 16, with two crew, is allowed - under the F16HP rule - a 15% larger mainsail, that is 16 sqm (included mast)?

Maurizio

Ahh, 12,5 ex mast; there is the reason for my misinterpretation of that area. As I understand it the A=cat class also includes the area of the boom in the 13,94 sq.mtr. limit.



The area limit for F16 mainsail is now at 103,5 % of the 8,7 mtr. by 13,7 sq.mtr. (=13,94-area boom) of the Javelin 16. Ergo the current proposed Jav 16 mainsail is at 97 % of the max allowed.



So yes the jav 16 mainsail is a pretty good F16 mainsail and the jav 16 will be full compliant in this setup in both 1-up and 2-up races.



Wouter

Wouter-

I don't remember the "A"'s measuring the boom (although I think there IS something about it can't be over a certain size without being included in the sail area- Like the rudder can't be over a certain width or it is included in the length of the hull- This is to prevent someone having a 12" wide boom, etc. The Taipan rules also limit boom size- by saying it must fit through a circle of X dimension as I remember). They measure and mark the mast and the sail, but not the boom.



Kirt

As far as I know the boom is included in the sailarea when its height is 1.5 tiems it's width. Also the area of the whole mast is included in the sailarea. Under F16 rules only the part of the mast next to the sail is included.



All this leads to Texel measurements of A-cats sail which are 13,60 sq.tr. or less. I guess the difference between 13,94 and 13,60 is caused by these issues. This 13,6 sq.mtr. on a 8,8 mtr luff results in a rated mainsail area of 12,62 sq. mtr. = 97 % of the allowed max.



But all this doesn't really matter much as the max. A-cat sail and mast combo of 13,94 sq.mtr. and a luff length of 9 mtrs (0,15 mtr boom clearence near mast) results in 12,976 sq.mtr rated mainsail area which is 99,8 % of the max allowed under F16 rules. All other sails in the F16 measure in at 99 to 99,9 %



So any A-class mast-sail combo will measure in, just like we intended at the beginning. That is ofcourse when the mast height isn't limited to 8.5 mtr.



Wouter