Phill was right to some extend
<br>
<br>a wider than Taipan 4.9 platform could achive more power without danger of picthpoling both in 1-up and 2-up.
<br>
<br>go to :
<br>
<br>http://www.geocities.com/kustzeilen/heeling_pitchpole.html
<br>
<br>and se ethe graphs. A 5 mtr. by 2,5 mtr F16HP would be pitchpole limited in all conditions except 45 degree and faster than 0,35 speed of wind. going lower or slower would put you in pichpole area again. Going higher will just keep you out of danger. Going wider and you're in trouble.
<br>
<br>draw your conclusions and make comments when you feel the need to. Do we need to change the max width from the tempory 2.5 mtr. max ?/
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

Wouter-
<br>I don't think we need to go wider than 2.5 mtr (in fact I'm sort of for 2.4 mtr since it seems to accomodate all the current boats?) for the HULLS, but I wouldn't mind a "Maximum overall width of racks/ladders/etc." set. I'm not sure what I would set this at but I would probably be liberal.
<br>Correct me if I'm wrong but increasing width of the hulls has one effect on pitchpoling while increasing the counterbalancing weight (ie. racks and trapezing crew) has another.
<br>By the way- What do you think of the 11' wide 18 squares? Seems they ought to be pitchpoling a lot??
<br>
<br>Kirt<br><br>Kirt Simmons
<br>Taipan #159, "A" cat US 48

I 'm thinking about ruling a maximum rack width relative to crew weaight but I'm a litle dawnted by enforcing this.
<br>
<br>It seems that 2,5 mtr. is a very good maximum width, It seems to be trailorable everyware and provide a repectable heavy air performance.
<br>
<br>I'm a little lost with what you mean by :"increasing width of the hulls has one effect on pitchpoling while increasing the counterbalancing weight (ie. racks and trapezing crew) has another"
<br>
<br>Can you explain ?
<br>
<br>About 18 squares. Thank you, I've found an error in the accompanying text. The numbers in the graphs are correct but the claim that it is solely dependable on the distances isn't.
<br>
<br>ratio F16HP = (150 * (2,5+1) + 2,5/2 * 100) / (150 * 1/2 * 5) = 650 / 375 = 1,73
<br>
<br>ratio 18 sq. = (75 * (3,35 +1) + 3,35/2 * 160) / 75 * 1/2 * 5,49) =
<br>594 / 205 = 2,90
<br>
<br>This would indicate that 18 sq. are rather picth happy even on close reaches. You have an 18 sq right Kirt, what are your experiences ?
<br>
<br>And Ohh, yeah before I forget; The wind must be strong enough before picthpole can happen.
<br>
<br>Hobie 16 has a ratio of 1,86
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

Folks,
<br>I like Kirt's idea of 2.4m width and allow racks.
<br>I'm easy on the width of each rack but 600mm seems like a good number .
<br>
<br>Boats with a narrower beam could use wider racks such the a rack plus beam are limited to 3 metres.
<br>
<br>Phill<br><br>

Folks,
<br>Just wondering where people are going to store their boats.
<br>The T4.9 has a 2.34m beam spcefically so it could be stored in a normal garage. With most garage doors being 2.4m wide.
<br>It is also a better width for towing when compared to the nominal width of a motor car.
<br>I had a friend with a cat with a 2.5m beam and he was concerned about trailering it along some country roads. Although it was a legal width the roads can be narrow and he found the increase in width to be of concern.
<br>It also caused some difficulty in getting it in and out of some driveways as they are frequestly designed for nominal rather than max legal widths. (For some reason he was more than confortable with a T4.9's beam.)
<br>
<br>Now if you leave your boat down the sailing club and don't have to travel along narrow roads to regattas 2.5 or 2.6m is not an issue.
<br>
<br>We could decide on any width but if you move your boat around out of the water even though the width may be legal it can be a pain.
<br>
<br>For this reason I'd like to see the width set at wichever is the max width of the proposed grandfather boats with the provision of racks.
<br>
<br>We could have racks that fold up on the boat and need not be taken off even when trailering. The width of the racks could have a max per boat that wold even up the righting moments for the varying widths and still provide the class with start up boats.
<br>Starting a class like this is difficult because people are better followers than leaders and won't get boats unless they are already being sailed.
<br>So how do you get them sailed. My veiw is that you come up with a set of rules that allows existing designs to compete on a level playing field from the beginning.
<br> Initially I think the racks could be easily made from 50mmx1.6mm wall aluminium tube and kevlar tape and attach
<br>to bolts out the trailing edges on the beams.
<br>As one swings out the other folds up via a support line that goes thru a fitting at the hounds.
<br>A cat rigged boat like this would have a better righting moment than a boat with 2.6m beam and with a 9m mast would be a real rocket ship. I also think it would be fairly unique in the market.
<br>
<br>Having said all that we need to make sure we don't get too ambitious. So please consider my comments in that context.
<br>
<br> I just thought I'd see what other people think about this because is is something I was going to do years ago but never quite got around to.
<br>
<br>
<br>Regards,
<br>Phill
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br><br>

Width to crewweight might work. I'll wait for the others to respond first before I do.
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

perhaps we could just rule that there is a max width from the centre line.. Rather than a "hull" width.. Allows for wide boats and boats with racks..
<br>I personally distrust the weight for width ideas.. Its used on the 49ers and the doping with diauretics and laxatives to reduce a few kgs before weigh in is a huge concern.. <br><br>

Well, I'm for a max. "hull" width, kept within easily trailerable/storable dimensions and including the most common current boats (we could always "grandfather" in some current slightly wider boats), I believe 2.4 meter will do this. I'm ALSO for the provision of "racks" to potentially extend the width out to some other maximum. I would set an "overall" max. to start with and see what happens.
<br>I think we NEED to remember this is NOT going to be an "all out" speed/performance class! My idea of this class is along the lines of a "pocket rocket", relatively small, light, but quick too. If we let the boats get too wide, too complex, too expensive, or too "fragile" (don't really want to get into that one again!) everybody will just get BIGGER boats!
<br>I agree with Phill that we need to accomodate the current boats or this will NEVER get off the ground except as a "manufactured" class run by companies trying to sell only NEW boats- And they will have an interest in making the rules such that only new boats essentially meet the rule.
<br>Let's make the rules around the existing classes that "fit" and THEN if any manufacturers want to come up with "new" boats they WILL design them within OUR rule specs (ala the F18's).
<br>
<br>Just my opinion of course-
<br>
<br>Kirt <br><br>Kirt Simmons
<br>Taipan #159, "A" cat US 48

Use Texel as default to calculate F18 equality on handicap. This will always imply that the F16HP's have a ISAF rating that is equal or slower than the F18's.
<br>
<br>Getting the max out of the Texel rating of rounded of 103 which is no less than 102,51 means
<br>
<br>Rated Mainsail =< 13.00 sq.mtr.
<br>Rated Jib =< 3,1 sq.mtr.
<br>Genaker =< 21 sq.mtr. but is restructed to 17,5 for other reasons
<br>weight min sloop without genakergear = 95 kg's
<br>
<br>THis will be the F16HP sold
<br>
<br>In the rules however will be declared later after the class is well established that
<br>
<br>over crewweight ###1 (Undetermined yet)
<br>Max rated jib will be something like 3,1 sq.mtr.
<br>Genaker size 21,0 sq.mtr. Hoist max 8,00 mtr
<br>or
<br>Max rated jib will be something like 4,1 sq.mtr.
<br>Genaker size 17,5 sq.mtr. Hoist max 7,55 mtr
<br>Chosen by the crew.
<br>
<br>over crewweight ###2 (Undetermined yet)
<br>Max rated jib will be something like 4,0 sq.mtr.
<br>Genaker size 21,0 sq.mtr. hoist max 8,0 mtr.
<br>
<br>In total three groups of different sail sizes.
<br>
<br>This will than function as a A LA F18 weight equalisation system without carrying weights.
<br>
<br>F16HP equal to F18 will require all teams to sail in the light crew configuration or take 1 or 2 % handicap hit.
<br>
<br>Official F16HP races will use the equalisation principle as described.
<br>
<br>Solo races will always use the small genaker size.
<br>
<br>The start will be a pure F18 style F16HP to keep things simple, later on when needed will the equalisation system be implemented.
<br>
<br>Agreed ?
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br>
<br>
<br><br><br>

still unclear why we cant have main only with a genacker... guess Im just thick..
<br><br><br>

Stewart-
<br>Not thick, just not specifically mentioned in Wouter's post-
<br>But the sentence that said something to the effect "Solo sailing will be with small gennaker" accomodates that combination.
<br>I believe (?) there will only be ONE "solo" (ie. single sailor, main only, gennaker) configuration-
<br>Mast 8 mtr. or less
<br>Sail area 13 sq. meter or less
<br>Gennaker 17.5 sq. meter or less
<br>
<br>And this configuration should allow these boats to sail "heads up" with the F18 sloops and the F16 sloops w/ the different jib configurations.
<br>
<br>Personally, I'd like to see it VERY simple such that only one(or at most two) jib(s) would be used with perhaps two gennakers.
<br>
<br>Kirt<br><br>Kirt Simmons
<br>Taipan #159, "A" cat US 48

Wouter<br><br>

Wouter<br><br>

To me .. grandfatherd boats would be those that fit outside the rules but due to prior acceptance are still classified as part of the class.. This being the case which boats fit outside the proposed rules?
<br>We seem to have selected a width that is wider than most of the current classes (perhaps Im mistaken)
<br>most 16footers fit under our proposed length (unless there is a 16.5 which we are "grandfathering")
<br>All are above the current proposed weight restriction as far as I can understand..
<br>mast all fit inside.. sail area Im not sure ..
<br> Tiapan seem to fit inside the length and width as does the stealth not sure about any others.. or am I missing something?
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br><br>

Steward,
<br>
<br>All the grandfathered boats are SLOOP rigged boats and optimized to be sailed as a sloop. Simply removing the jib when sailing 2-up will slow them down. And why do we want to do that. Experiences wit the Taipans in AUS have shown that a catrigged taipan 1-up is as fast around a race course as a sloop rigged 2-up boats as long as the course isn't too long for the sloop wins on outright speed and the catrigged boat can keep up due to fast tacks, manouvres and better acceleration. Now put two guys on the catrigged boat and you certainly won't beat a sloop rigged Taipan.
<br>
<br>We could go catrigged genaker 2-up in F16 HP but that can only be succesful when the mastheights are increased considerably to correct out over the lack of sailarea and losing the ventury effect. This will put the mastheight far beyond the height of any grandfatherd boat. This will be a suicide for the F16HP as some of the groupmembers have expressed.
<br>
<br>It will also kill of the concept of racing more or less equal between the 1-up and 2-up configurations, which is also a design goal.
<br>
<br>And ofcourse optimizing a catrigged 2-up boat will mean that that design will be totally unsuitable to be sailed solo. This is against the second design goal of the F16HP
<br>
<br>Sorry steward no catrigged 2-up F16HP. There maybe one in the future but not as a result of this initiative now.
<br>
<br>If you want catrigged F16HP then sail your F16HP solo. Or race your F16HP with 2-up in handicap races. You're always allowed to sail the F16HP without the jib as long as you don't do it in official F16HP 2-up races. You already have a buddy in the BIM F16.
<br>
<br>May I ask why you put this point forward from time to time. I hope not because if you think that the 2-up F16HP is slow when compared to the catrigged boats like the A-cat because than I can assure you that there are reports where a Taipan sloop 2-up without genaker really pissed of a well known A-cat sailor several times in a row. In perfect A-cat weather and on a bouy race course. The report is even more humiliating but thatnis beside the point right now. As far as I can tell, there are more reports about Taipans beating A-cats on the Taipan messageboards. I don't say tehy do it regulary but it is know to happen, I see this a proof that the F16HP won't be slow by any means. And at least not significantly slower than catrigged boats.
<br>
<br>I would like to tell you more and give names but I promised I wouldn't. So you just have to believe me.
<br>
<br>I hope this goes a long way in answering your (real) question
<br>
<br>Regards,
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

Anonimous4<br><br>