None have submitted a proposal with the GC for fundamental rule changes yet, so it might be safe to say that all are happy?
Rolf, Just because I haven't submitted a new taxation proposal to my government doesn't mean i'm happy with the situation <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
What I dont get is why people are so fascinated by the question, letting macca goad them on in a discussion not going anywhere. I can only imagine the reactions to the same agenda on the Mosquito forum, the F18, Tornado, A-class, Taipan or just about any other class. It would be utterly ridicilous, but here.. I dont get it.
Aside from the fact that I didn’t start this discussion I think there are a few points that need to be made:-
I agree that a lighter boat is a better boat to sail, but that does not make it a better class or even a better race boat.
Take F18 for example, the boats are heavy for their size, but that has no impact on the quality of the racing or any real impact on the joy of sailing the boat. I get the same buzz from sailing the F18 as I do sailing the Super Taipan.
Now have a look at two yacht classes:-
Farr 40 and Sydney 38. The F40 is a lighter, more powerful and a lot faster than the S38. But the racing in the Sydney 38 class is better imho. The boats are closer in speed due to the lower power/weight ratio so the racing is closer and rewards better tactics rather than who gets one extra wave. In Europe you have the X35 class with huge fleets and close racing, The boat is simple to build, cheap and easy to sail. But the racing is great..
F16 was conceived with the Taipan as the baseline of the class. The Taipan hullshape was not designed with F16 sail configuration in mind and as such it is not optimised for carrying a spi, this has been confirmed by the designer of the boat. The platform weight on a taipan is low because of the low surface area/volume in the hulls and sub standard beams for F16. Newer designs have taken the needs of spi sailing into account and as such the hull volume has increased. You can’t increase hull volume/surface area without either:-
a) increasing weight
b) reducing layup to maintain weight (less strength, not a good idea with increased loads from a spi)
c) use more exotic materials to maintain weight (increase costs)
So the evolution of the hull shapes has meant that its now very hard to build a boat to min weight. The Blade is larger than the Taipan but I think the fastest hull shapes across a broad range of conditions (particularly 2 handed) will end up more like the Viper which is larger again.
So now you have a choice:-
a) have a boat on min weight that has a sub optimal hull shape
b)have an optimal hull shape that's overweight
c) have an optimal hull shape that's on weight but costs a lot to build due to the need for exotics
So to build a F16 with the new larger volume hulls and have it on weight you are talking about building a boat close to the standard of an A class.
Herein lies the problem for F16… If a builder were to build a boat with the new larger volume hull shape and did that to minimum weight you would have to resort to exotics in the hulls (possibly beams) and for sure mast. So based on the current costs of an A class (around 21k Euro) I think a F16 would be around that price.
Note: The savings you make on the F16 by possibly not using carbon beams etc are more than taken up by the expense of:-
Jib
Self tacker
Spi and pole etc
Extra rigging etc
Hands up who wants to pay 21k Euro (33k USD these days <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> ) for a F16 built with the new hull shape and to the current rules?
Now before you all come down on me for being nasty, let me say this:-
I like the boats, the class is a good idea. But I can see that its growth will be hindered by the above issues and attacking me for expressing a valid point of view only takes away from the positives that the class currently has and reduces the opportunity for the class to reach is ultimate potential.