If I understand the thread correctly the problem is low turnout at regattas. Adding a jib to the F18ht will not solve the problem. Look at the F18, it is a healthy class with good racing and that's why they sail it, not because it has jib and weights 180 kg and can't use carbon masts.

I sail the Hobie 16 for several reasons, but the design and performance of the boat is not one of them! The boat is a challenge to sail well, not too expensive, good sailors in the class and they have excellent parties at the regattas, that's why I sail it.

/hakan

Bill,
If Uni is what you like opening up the rules will not prevent you from sailing it as a Uni. However the current set of rules do prevent you or anyone else from sailing as a sloop. With the F18 being 180kg I thought the thing that defined the HT as a class was its light weight.

Regards,
Phill

170Kg and it's not strong enough???!!! What's it made out of?
I just bought an old Tiger Shark. 18 feet, Big sail area, thirty foot mast, twin trap, 107Kg and has been being thrashed by Kiwis for 25 years.

yes, the weight and the uni defined the ht in my opinion.

And yes I agree that if the rules were opened up then the boat could still and probably would likely mostly be sailed as a uni.

If you wanted to really do something interesting, I would get rid of the max beam rule, the uni rule, the spin hoist height rule, the foiling rule.

And just keep the 18ft long, 165k min weight, 20sq up, 40 sq down and it has to be a catamaran. Make it 2 man development class. Kind of a mirror of the Acat rule set, but for two people.

That might be more interesting.

Bill

oh and allow foiling and solid wing sails.

I would go one further.

Keep the boat 5.50 mtr (18ft) long, 130kg min weight then allow 2.75mtr width and limit total sail area to 40 sq. mtr. Allow a designer to use that sail area any why he wants.

Only then will you see some true development, mostly in the rig as the designers will try to find to most optimial distribution of the sail area over all possible sails. THAT could be very interesting. Mostly because they can keep the spi luff length but transfer some spi area to other sails.


Ruling that the class will have "20sq up, 40 sq down" is fixating the rig to the current uni-rig setup, thus meaning the only development that will be done under your proposal is making the boat a little wider. That is not development in anyway. Besides, isn't 165 kg ready to sail weight a little heavy ?

Also as the boat is now, even with extra width it will never succesfully compete with the other designs in the major cat sailing scene. The 18HT design must try to find a new elan or accept being confined to the Alps as a class. I honestly believe this to be true, so I guess the basic question becomes of what the 18HT class want for the future. Afterall they can be perfectly happy in the Alps as they are now.

Wouter

Wouter, thats a good point, I agree with you, except on the beam restriction. Why not leave it unlimited?

The class really needs to decide what they want to be when they grow up.

I say either leave it alone, no jib, or start losing rules wholesale and make it a true development class.

Although the point seems to be kind of moot in the US.

Is anyone racing their HT? I dont think any of the new england boats are racing.

Bill

Is it feasible to achieve the dual configuration characteristics of the F16 in a lightweight 18ft platform?

Good point, I'm certainly open for discussion on this aspect.

The reason I limited width is actually the same reason why length and total sail area is limited. Just to have some measure of equality between boats. Choosing length, width and area is arbitrary anyway as going longer, wider or larger is not really development; it is simply going bigger.

Development is making the most of what you have. The only concern here is of course that the rules that are present are not overly restrictive and thus actively force a particular setup.

Personally I believe that the length restriction on the hull is an implitely width limit already as beyond a length/width ratio of 2 you'll start to push your bows under anyway. So indeed an unregulated width is a viable option. Maybe we'll find that the best ratio is 1.85 or something. That would be an interesting find a well.

Wouter