Well, when the boss is on holliday ...



Just returned from a trip on a 60 mtr. three masted sailvessel; touring a week on the North Sea and the English Channel. Visited Portsmouth and Cherbourg and got caught out in a past 68 knots gust in a 50 + consistant wind. Even held the windspeedometer needle between 60 and 68 knots for ten minutes. Why 68 ? Well that was where the needle hit to stopper block at the end of the scale. And yes, that is wind force 12 and we were in 10 + winds for something like 7 hours.



And three guesses where we did that ? Right there in the middle of the shipping line between Calais and Dover. And I was on the dog watch. Dark skies, white foam , and a deathaning noise form the wind blowing on the three masts.



And really guys, this is NOT exegerrated.



But I just got back an I am ready up on some 20 e-mails and a good number of posts on the forum.



It is good to see the class develop in this way and to welcome the Taipan sailors from Australia in the discussions. Also I see a few others posters from the past that have chosen to comment on the issues again.



If I may I would like to offer a few comments as the chairman of this class and give you a quick run down of the stand of things.



Mast tip weight : As the chairman I recognize the points made about safety, ensureance and psychological effect. BUT, and a important but it is, I equally recognize the points made about allowing some development, keeping the openess of the rules and the fear to overly favour the Taipan design in the new rules and disfavour other (carbon) designs.



I can assure you all that this topic is not one of my favorite topics of the discussion as the moment that I will have to "decide" will come soon and it is absolutely assured that the compromise reached will be less than what all of you individually want. However, a compromise it will be and as such it should be accepted by all. If any of you feels that this compromise will destroy the current F16 class than I invite them to start their own class and see how far (or nearby) they will end up.



The current compromise was developped after consulted all the builders involved in the class as well as mast builders. It also includes a new design thinking relating to aluminium masts.



(new proposed rule) The minimum mast tip weight of a fully fitted mast is set at 6.50 kg's for reasons of seaworthyness.



Low enough to satisfy all builders of current and future F16 builders (And I said all) as well as the "go development" sailors; high enough to garantee seaworthy masts and to satisfy the alu mast owners.



Now I'm sure this rule mod will harvest alot of arguments but I underline that the poster better make these very convincing as a quite a few BIG names in "cat and mast" scene had their say about this rule already.





Bimare Jav 16; I strongly welcome bimare's effort in this direction. And I think that Maurizio rightfully claims that price of carbon isn't the main issue. Let me assure some of you that this line of thought it supported by more than one builder and even more than 2 builders for that matter. I am personally very anxious to see the wave piercer design of the Javelin-16 and compare it to the Ventilo Zipo.



With respect to teh other points made pro and con the bimare I would like to add this;



Anybody who thinks that a uni rig of 9 mtr tallness (1.06 % of 8,5 mtr.) and a fitted mainsail of 12,5 sq. mtr. = (85 % of the F16 mainsail) sailed doublehanded can outsail a sloop F16 or even the jibless but with larger mainsail F16, has some remarkable idea's. Especially after Micheal Coffmans report and the TF16 (Taipan F16) results in the RTI race in relation to F18HT's.



I misused the FX-one and FX-two (With jib) to test some idea's on how the jib affects the performance of a boat and I can honestly say that the difference is noticable and in favour of the sloop. I haven't said this in the past in order not to discredit Bimare but this is a two way street.



Nevertheless, I'm confindent that the Bimare Platform will be well designed and be available without mast and sail to buyers willing to optimize the rig to their own wishes.



I have gone and will to great lengths to accomodate Bimare's believes in the class but if bimare sees better opportunities outside the F16 class (contrary to Stealth Marine, AHPC, Blade inc. and to some extend Ventilo) than I will not stop bimare in any way.



Having said this, and in favour of Bimare, it will be over my dead body when carbon masts will be outlawed. And I will add that Bimare has the support of ALL the other builders in this respect.



On a more positive note. I can announce the advent of another F16 design. The design will be called a Blade F16 and it will be produced in Europe. It will be a fully compliant F16 design in every respect. Testing of various parts has already commenced and the launch is expected in 2003. The designing team has expressed their full commitment to the current and adjusted F16 rules. The projected cost of this design also hovers around 70 % of current F18's.



With kind regards,



Wouter Hijink



Chairman Formula 16 class

Why 6.5Kgs....



What is the tip weight of the Stealth? I beleive it was 7.2kgs from your and Phil's last email... That is what you said was developed and is proven as a strong mast with suitable characteristics and durability....



Why are you proposing to make it lighter than 7.2 which is a proven design...



Why is this not going to a ballot for the members to decide...??



All your orginal arguments about the performance advantage were reduced to small percentages, now you say it is set at 1kg difference, 15% lighter the performance difference is definitely there.



Nobody is proposing to ban carbon... Just make sure we have a durable class and an alloy mast can be compeditive...



You are forcing the class to use a Carbon mast....



Can you confirm which builders agree with your proposal... Does AHPC????



Cheers



Willy

>>Can you confirm which builders agree with your proposal... Does AHPC????



Yes, they agree.



And tip weight of 6.5 kg's is halve way between 5,5 kg's which was the lowest quote with carbon and 7.5 kg's which is possible with aluminium.



Both camps now loose by equal amounts = fair compromise



And you are misintepreting / misquoting my comments regarding the Stealth mast.



Also, none of the experts (inc AHPC) share your view of inequality in performance due to differences in tipweight. You may contact them yourself if you want to.



This may be a good time to count your wins and leave something for the other camp.



Wouter

Is 6.5kg now set and will it be in the rules?



As you said AHPC have agreed. Yes they have... They have compromised and are looking at F16 not just the Taipan as an F16. Obviously I am a Taipan owner and have an alloy mast... Life is about compromise.



I agree with 6.5kg. I confirmed the weights with Scott Anderson and he believed it would provide a strong, durable mast.

A good result....



Well done....

The 6.5 kg tipweight is included in the proposed adjusted rules which is currently going through its lasts procedureal requirements before the ballots. I've also just received a reply from the F18 class organisation clearifying some new addtions to their rules; and I'm analysing the merits of these rule for the F16 class. I'm still waiting for a reply of the ISAF handicap committee for a ruling on one point and then I can say that the proces is completed and we are left with just the ballot.



These wheels turn slowly but they are definately turning.



I welcome your last post and the confirmation of Scott Anderson. I salut your acceptance of the compromise reached. Some of the officials know the amount of work that went into this compromise and I respect the the fact that you recognize that by virtue of your statement :"A good result.."



After talking the builders and mastbuilders I too feel that this rule will provide strong, durable and optimize masts for the F16 class while not unnecessary restricting designers in their freedom or allowing any unfairness.



There is more to this point, that will be to the satisfaction of alu mast owners but I can comment on that publically yet.



Before I sign off I wish to underline the fact that I think you picked up. The overall weight of a FX-one aluminium mast is 20 kg's; The Superwing = 15,5 kg's and the effectively the limit on carbon is about 13,5 kg's by virtue of the tipweight rule. Clearly the difference between carbon and FX-one alu is considerable, but the difference between superwing and Carbon is much less. So yes carbon is often at an advantage to alu but the superwing alu is also in a different league with respect to normal alu. Hence I believe that the proposed rules are fair and it is the opinion of all the involved designers/sailmakers that the difference allowed under the proposed rules is seriously neglectable with regard to overall performance.



Wouter

On a more personal note:



>>Obviously I am a Taipan owner and have an alloy mast... >>Life is about compromise.





My own optimized F16 boat also has the Alu superwing section as a mast. So I think I can claim that I stand by my conviction.



Wouter