Gday everybody ill be looking at getting into F16 in a couple of years time using a taipan, whats the advantage of widening the platform 160mm (Taipan 2340mm & F16 2500mm)to make it widest possible as per F16 Reg.s
Cheers Ausstricker

Advantages
- More righting moment

Disadvantages
- New beams
- New tramp
- Maybe new mainsheet track
- Trailer mods
- A little more windage
- Not Taipan compliant
- More weight (unless you go to lighter beams)

Advantages
- More righting moment (RM)
- More speed upwind as more RM once hull is flying
- More speed downwind as more RM once hull is flying

Disadvantages
- New beams
- New tramp
- Maybe new mainsheet track - I doubt it, my traveller rarely goes out more than 12 inches.
- minor Trailer mods
- A tiny little bit more windage
- Not Taipan compliant
- More weight (unless you go to lighter beams)

My thinking is that more RM dont always result in better speed, but there is a sliding scale. Anyway, if you sail in a strong-wind area and you care about it, go max beam (there is so much psychology into this, so if you think you are at an disadvantage, do something to equalize it).

Simon,

since we have the advantage of having the SCHRS guru in the class, how much would the SCHRS rating change in this case? Always useful to know a bit about how large the theorethical difference is.

0.002 single handed boat goes from 0.982 to 0.984!

Dont sound like a large difference in the pure physical sense for real world racing? But the mental difference might be huge.
I dont want to wear you out on SCHRS Simon, but if one was to add sailarea to the main, or remove weight, how much area/weight does a difference of 0.002 make then? Just to put the question into perspective and as long as we all understand this is a hypothetical discussion.

The 4.9 has been around for a while now, and is still the bench mark small cat in Aus.

They have the advantage of being well developed.
A well sailed Taipan is a fast boat and will be hard to beat in most conditions.

My advise, for what it's worth, is, get your self a Taipan, stay Taipan legal, and enjoy.

Put on a spinnaker and enjoy the best of both worlds.

Regards Tony

Rolf, no problem, doing this on SCHRS is very ver yeasy.

To make it clear; I took a FULLY OPTIMISED Single handed F16 and changed the beam to make it less; this gave the 0.002.

I do not have the measurements for the Tiapan.

To take a thinner F16 and get it back up to 0.982 with sail area would require an additional 0.1sqm of mainsail or 0.5sqm of Spi.

A wider platform without a longer water line length is also more prone to pitch polling! However, this is splitting hairs in this instance. Also, a slightly narrower beam will raise the windward hull sooner reducing wetted hull area/drag and I also think narrower Cats like the Stealth R point higher than the Stealth F16 but there's no real proof of this occurance. Therefore, you have a couple of years to consider the pro's and con's

One more advantage...

- more distance on the starting line between your sails and the next, therefore clearer air...

other advantage
- more room on tramp to stretch out when you pass out drunk at post race party

Actually, making the Taipan wider by 160 mm makes a much larger difference optically. Throw in the selftacker and that Taipan F16 trampoline feel alot more roomy than that of the Taipan 4.9. That was the conclusion of the Dutch Coast Challenge of 2004 when both boats layed side by side.

I can't really explain why but the difference is very noticeably or at least I though so. Additionally I hadn't expected that so maybe my feelings were amplified by the surprise of the change.

Wouter

Nacra AUS released the Nacra F18 in OZ with a slightly narrower beam (within AUS towing limits) but soon noticed it was off the pace upwind against the full width Nacra F18s from overseas. They soon increased the beam to full width.

Are you certain that was not either more of a mental problem, or the quality of the sailors? Lots of factors there to make a valid comparison.

More beam = more righting momentum = more speed

Nowhere more noticeable than on the upwinds particularly when punching of a start line.

Other factors such as sailing skill will always come into play, but reduction in beam is a guaranteed disadvantage. That you cannot hide that or argue against.

Yes but then you may also want to calculate in your crew weight as in "real world racing" the boat will not sail itself..;-))

OK if you say so...

Do you disagree with what I said Buccaneer?

T_A

no denying there is a difference. I wanted to quantify how large the difference is, and the SCHRS numbers suggests that in this specific case the difference in speed is very small? Perhaps even negligible?
By all means, I think Ausstricker should widen the boat if the lack of 16cm beam bothers him, but buying a set of new sails and rigging a selftacker sounds to me like a better investment if he wants to go F16 racing.

My personal pet theory is that a lot of people let things like percieved disadvantages on their gear get in the way of their performance on the water. Playing the game of 'blaming' like "My boat have 16 cm less beam than everybody elses, so of course we were last in heavy wind" and all sort of other 'plausible reasons' to excuse their lack of performance. I even think this can drab very experienced racers as well, making them perform less than their potential or sub-par to their skills. In in this context, 16cm can make a world of difference on the water, but only until some new excuse to blame can be thought up, and we sailors are very creative when it comes to thinking up excuses. Not directed towards you T_A, just an explanation on my standpoint to the question starting this thread.
It is all in our heads!

I would not bastardise a 4.9 to do it..... Too much $$$, devalue the boat and cut you off from any 4.9 class racing. Even if I was to build an F16 using Taipan hulls in AUS, I would follow the 4.9 class rules. If outside AUS or building a new F16 from scrath, then I would go max beam, even on a 4.9.