Go to link ;
<br>
<br>http://www.geocities.com/f16htclass/F16HT_general_boxrule_proposal.html
<br>
<br>To the proposal for the final rule framework. I'm still working on the equalization groups to get them right on the numbers.
<br>
<br>Take a look and see you monday
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

Wouter-
<br>Under Performance Equalisation I have a few issues-
<br>1) You state-
<br>1-up sailing performance limit
<br>
<br>No performance limit is set for the 1-up sailing configuration. It is very unlikely that the F16HP authority will ever change this rule even though she reserves the right to do so. It has been chosen to let this configuration mimic the characteristics of the A-cat class.
<br>
<br>I thought 1-up we WERE going to set SOME limits- Such as mast height, mainsail area, gennaker size, and gennaker hoist height. Is this NOT true?? I believe an original intent was to allow the 1-up and 2-up F16 HP's to race "heads up" but if only the 2-up are limited this won't last long ;-)
<br>Now it sounds like the 1-up configuration, outside weight and hull dimensions is "open"??
<br>If this is not the case then it at least needs to be rewritten to clarify-
<br>
<br>2) Under 2-up- For the Future classes
<br>You wrote-
<br>
<br>Group 1 : Combined crewweight 121 kg's - 135 kg's
<br>
<br> Rated mainsail area <= 13,00 sq. mtr.
<br> Max allowed rated jib size =< 3,10 sq. mtr.
<br> Max hoist height 7,55 mtr
<br> Max genaker area 17,5 sq. mtr.
<br>
<br>Group 2 : Combined crewweight 136 kg's - 150 kg's
<br>
<br> Rated mainsail area <= 13,00 sq. mtr.
<br> Max allowed rated jib size =< 3,10 sq. mtr.
<br> Max hoist height 8,00mtr
<br> Max genaker area 21,0 sq. mtr.
<br>
<br>Group 3 : Combined crewweight 151 kg's - 165 kg's
<br>
<br> Rated mainsail area <= 13,00 sq. mtr.
<br> Max allowed rated jib size =< 3,75 sq. mtr.
<br> Max hoist height 7,55 mtr
<br> Max genaker area 17,5 sq. mtr.
<br>
<br>Group 4 : Combined crewweight 165 kg's and more
<br>
<br> Rated mainsail area <= 13,00 sq. mtr.
<br> Max allowed rated jib size =< 3,75 sq. mtr.
<br> Max hoist height 8,00 mtr
<br> Max genaker area 21,0 sq. mtr.
<br>
<br>
<br>I don't understand Group 3- Heavier crew weight than Group 2 so they get to use a larger jib BUT they have to use a smaller gennaker with a lower mast hoist height??
<br>This must be a typographical error?
<br>
<br>Hope you had a good time!
<br>
<br>Kirt<br><br>Kirt Simmons
<br>Taipan #159, "A" cat US 48

Kirt all good points :
<br>
<br>- On mast height, I forgot. It has been updated
<br>
<br>- On one up sailing We mean the same I just wrote it down in vague terms. I've corrected a bit, I will work more on the wording when I'm back. Idea is 1-up sailing with minimal sizes genaker and hoist. Mainsail is the same for all. 2-up sailing, switching of different sizes jibs and genakers. I migh tad the requirement that the 2 -up most be convretable to 1-up by leaving the jib off.
<br>
<br>Tw good points Kirt, Let me assure you that we mean the same but my wording is errornous.
<br>
<br>Last point :
<br>
<br>I measured upwind / downwind time ratio of genaker boats to be around 60 % to 40 % when one lap is 100 %. A larger jib may well have a bigger impact than the larger genaker. Plus is gives the group 3 an advantage on the first all important leg upwind or even the last finishing leg upwind. In short the advantage of the larger is assumed to be bigger than taht of the genaker. And it is assumed that there is not much performance differerence between group 2 and 3 to start with. All assumptions that need to be discussed I know. Later
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br>
<br><br><br>

Wouter-
<br>Okay, only "issue" I have now is your statement that:
<br>
<br>Idea is 1-up sailing with minimal sizes genaker and hoist. I migh tad the requirement that the 2 -up most be convretable to 1-up by leaving the jib off.
<br>
<br>I agree with your idea of making the boats as convertible as possible BUT, to me, that means the 1-up should have the "higher" hoist height, even though it has the "smaller" gennaker (I think the BIM 16 has a higher hoist height than 7.5 meters so it would already be "breaking" this rule?).
<br>Now that I think about it, I'm not real clear on the reason for restricting hoist height by 0.5 meter for certain weights. I know that will affect the all important luff length but it complicates the issue for sailmakers, sailors (who may want to be able to sail in several different "configurations" w/ minimal problem), mast makers and future new designs.
<br>
<br>SO- I think I would like to vote for max. hoist height of 8 meters for all-- (or else 7.5 meters for all or even 7.75 meters for all or whatever the current BIM 16 hoist height is).
<br>Could you comment on the downside(s) of this?
<br> To ME, one of the big attractions of this class is this "convertibility" ability but in order to really take advantage of it we NEED to keep the rules such that this is easily, reliably, and "universally" applied to the boats.
<br>
<br>Kirt<br><br>Kirt Simmons
<br>Taipan #159, "A" cat US 48

Agree with Kirt about the hoist height of the genacker.. Should preferably be one level max.. <br><br>

I'm also in agreement.
<br>Whatever the hoist height it should be the same for both configs. Does anyone know the BIM hoist height?<br><br>

Kirt, I really do not believe that the BIM 16 has a higher hoist height than 7,55 mtr. When I look at the picture with W.F. on the F16HP welcome page than I see the BIM 16 genaker is attached just above the hounds. These will be around 6,5 mtr. up the mast for a 9 mtr tall mast. The Genaker hoistheight will therefor be well within the 7,55 mtr.
<br>
<br>On the issue of having different hoist height :
<br>
<br>Reasons for this are :
<br>
<br>- to have a truelly effective weight equalisation system. Aspect ratio of the genaker is important here as well as lufflength
<br>
<br>- Not to make the genaker reach to high for solo sailors.
<br>
<br>- Because it is simple to implement.
<br>
<br>The first reason is a safe guard for easy conversion. Example : the system I use, uses a turtle block up the mast and a dyneema line running from one side of the sail groove to the other side passing in front of the mast. I run the genaker halyard trough a shackle that is loosely fixed on this little dyneema loop. All I have to do to have a lower (Or heigher genaker hound is drill two new hole in the groove at al lower position and run a second dyneema line through it. Converting now only requires to undo the shackle and reattach it on the other loop. Nearly the same procedure when you have two metal mast tangs (?)
<br>
<br>More so if a mast can take the load of a 21 sq. mtr, genaker at 8 mtr. hoist height than it will definately be able to withstand the loads of a 17,5 sq, mtr, genaker at a lower hoist height.
<br>
<br>In short I don't really see a problem from a contruction point of view.
<br>
<br>Sailmakers : I don't really see how they are effected by the different hoist heights. The combination is clear. Small genaker => short luff and big genaker => long luff And these measurements will be the same for all F16HP designs. Incorporating these difference is just as easy for them as changing the size of a genaker. It probably is better for in both genakers they can stay close to their optimal shape. The bigger genaker is just an enlargement of the smaller one.
<br>
<br>With respect to the downside I say: Weight equalisation. Doing everything universially will make the class favor a particular crewweight over all others just as the other classes do.
<br>
<br>We have already "gone universal" in things like mainsail area and weight. We really need to have a finetune button somewhere in order to keep the F16HP having a wide range of competitive crew weights. Only things left right now are Genaker shape /size and jib shape and size. Both are relatively inexpensive and can be fitted to all boats without the need for big changes. Lets use them.
<br>
<br>The way I personally see it is that a dealor can and will offer the following configuration as standard.
<br>
<br>F16HP compliant platform
<br>Mast fitted with two genaker mast tangs but using the same halyard turtle block and other hardware.
<br>A small size jib 3,1 rated area
<br>A small size genaker 17,5
<br>
<br>And that this set is always allowed to race by any crew; be it solo or 2-up. Heavy weights can opt to change their small jib and /or small genaker to be replaced by the larger sized ones making them competitive for the same investment. Only limitation they get is that they are not allowed to race in any configuration anymore. In most cases they would buy an additional smaller genaker in order to race solo again.
<br>
<br>I admit that the simplest solution will be one size fits all but we all know that things don't always work that way. I feel that using the genaker size/hoist height and jib size we can make it fit to far more people against acceptable costs.
<br>
<br>Remember that a heavy weight crew can always opt for to race small if they want to save that extra cost of only US$ 100 that it takes to add 3,5 sq. mtr. to a genaker and 0,75 sq.mtr. to a jib.
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br><br><br>

GUys, Guys, please explain to me where you see problems with two different hoist heights for two different sized genakers.
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br><br><br>

hate putting more holes in carbon masts.........<br><br>

I only have holes in the sailtrack !!
<br>
<br>My current set up still has extra holes for the turtleblock but my next setup will only have holes in the masttrack where it can do no harm at all.
<br>
<br>So this argument is not a problem.
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br>
<br><br><br>