Whaaat!! Why is this thread still going??
Can't we wrap it up guys?

Its good fun this thread, the forum has been a litle boring of late so lets keep it going.

You guys talk of what an all carbon boat weights, Bitsa for those who followed that thread is probably getting close to being as light as you really want in construction and is pretty much all carbon apart from the ali beams ( sorry I think Ali is just as good as carbon in the way it is used in that application) plus I have saved quite a few kilos on the snuffer arrangement. I would suspect though that its long term durability will be less than say a Viper, thats the nub of building very light.

As yet I haven't weighed it all up but compared to my "lightened " Stealth which was spot on the class weight it is appreciably lighter to wheel about. One thing for sure I will have to be putting lead on to make class weight when I put the F16 sail and mast on.

Sorry guys but the class weight is easily attainable with glass and good design. However I do think that the Viper is certainly a " fat bottomed " lass and the hull size is easily the biggest in the class causing some of its excess weight. But it goes well with two up and simply confirms my suspicions that for good all round two up sailing, hull volumes need to go up a bit from where we are now. So what if that then makes that design a little Porky, it will still win races and will still be a very marketiable boat

I think we know this guy already; his name is Scooby Simon !

He got a carbon mast, carbon beams and I believe carbon hulls. All made be Stealth Marine in the UK

I think he drew the line at diamond inlays however !

Smart fellow !

Wouter

I discussed this with a guy whose name we all know from the A-cat class and who has for many years made carbon masts and other carbon components. This was at the time that my homebuild was under construction and I had to decide whether to go for alu or carbon beams.

He assured me, based on his A-cat experience, that I should not expect to save much more then 1.0-1.5 kg per beam. At the time the cost simply did not weight up against the benefits.

Wouter

Hello Wayne,

With respect to Bitsa (or an all carbon 1-up F16) we have a relatively good benchmark of what can be attained.

That benchmark is called the Marstrom M18 (and shares many specs with the F16's like sailarea) and it weights 80 kg.

Nice project you got going there by the way.

Wouter

If anybody is wondering what I meant earlier by rudder stocks made from bending high grade aluminium tube.

It looks like this :

and it is simple, strong, light and cheap.

(even some non-F16 builder has seen the light in this respect, as this boat is not an F16)

"Carbon beams will not save any appreciable weight over tube aluminum. The only way you could save weight going to carbon beams is to get rid of the bolts and bond the boat together, but that is not allowed."

You might recall that this avenue of performance enhancement (bonding the beams instead of bolting) was campaigned against by AHPC for "economic reasons"...to fit in standard shipping containers.

It has been a long time since I posted on this forum. Let me present myself. I'm a french sailor who passed 2 years in the US in 2007 and 2008. Before that, in france, I sailed an old F18 dart hawk for 3 or 4 years mainly with my wife. In the US I bought a laser that I raced regularly and since I'm back to france I purchased a used F18 capricorn.

I know francis cause he is the AHPC dealer but I did not discuss this matter with him. I also have no interest in any firms selling catamarans.
I'm not a member and do not own an F16, mainly because it's way easier to find a used F18 than an F16. I'm sparing some money to buy a brand new F16 as soon as possible. Oh, and I also helped to translate into french the F16 website...

So here is my 2 cents and I would understand if you disregard it.

I was one of the first talking about the fact that the viper marketed itself as an F16 and a C104 and that would make it a sensible choice for a french sailor. French is one of the biggest catamaran market if not the biggest and indeed viper is selling very well here.

Why am I saying all this? Because I think that in no time the viper will become the most represented F16 design, if not already. If this assumption become true, there will be enough people racing on vipers to race on elapsed time at some events, in a OD manner. They probably will do so if some junks show up at an event with a full carbon viper at 107kg. Viper would then end up as a OD and F16 with no big manufacturers will end up with too few but light and very competitive boats. Someone wanting a high performance 16 ft catamaran (like me) will then have to chose between the two and will do depending of whether he is racing or not. Racers will likely choose a viper because of numbers of cats showing up at a race and the other will choose lighter F16 cause they don't want to drag too much weight on the beach.
So, imho if the min weight rule is not amended there will be a split between viper and lighter F16 and I guess this is not what people wants.

In the past years I've always been opposed to a change of this min. weight rule. But I think that the success of the viper changed the situation. AHPC made a good work by selling their cats and now it will be difficult to become a fully grown formula class like the F18 without the viper and the associated sailors. They won't like to be beaten at the 2010 global challenge by a 107 kgs viper fitting the F16 rules... Either 104 or F16 or viper OD will survive in the long run, not all of them. I have not quite yet make up my mind, and I don't knnow the truth, but I think we might think seriously about the min rule weight and not just disregard it like 2 years ago. Situation has changed. It might be time to adapt.

Thomas.

Actually, AHPC had a list of reasons to not supporting carbon beams and all made sense to various degrees.

The "shipping by container" was actually one that linked in very well with the spirit of the F16 class rules.

It identified a serious issue. The health of the F16 class is maintained by having multiple builders participate and compete with eachother inside a single class structure where their individual efforts will also strength their common interest. Viable international shipping is a serious precondition. Also with respect the internation events where private parties need to ship their own boats to the event. It needs no further arguing that disassembled shipping is very much cheaper then hiring space on specialized oversize containers that may or may not be handled in the port of choice. Of course, aftermarket customer services like replacing parts under warranty is better handled when all component can be disassembled by the owner. Lots of owners also prefer to disassemble their boats for winter storage. This means that fully bonded boat would also go against the practical concept for the F16 class.

Therefor a compromise was struck where the true culprit (the bonding of the beams instead of the material choice) was banned. Of course, an advantageous side-effect was that is also limited the potential gains of any carbon beams. Much like the mast tip rule does.

The beauty of this rule was of course that homebuilders in far of places or even builders with interesting local limitations could still use glass or carbon to replace aluminium components. For example, it is cheaper for the Finish guys to build glass or carbon beams then to have the right high grade alu tubes shipped to them. For Stealth marine it is actually cheaper to make carbon masts in-house then to buy aluminium masts.

Therefor both the mast tip weigth rule and non-bonding of beams rule allow maximal freedom of available resources (materials etc) while forcing a more equal playing field and reducing costs. Note that even alu beams may be bonded to the hulls by use of special glues; so this rule was NOT solely against the carbon beams.

I personally feel that AHPC did us a great favour in spotting this potential problem point (Problematic international shipping, reduced participation) and I have never seen any protest from any of the other builders on this aspect. Everybody basically thought it a good idea.

Wouter

That is some tidy work on the blade hull.

Wouter as usuall your numbers are based on complete crap. Are you related to Doug Lord?

Thomas,

Welcome back.

Personally, I think the thing you decribe can always happen.

Blade sailors in the Netherlands can suddenly decide to go OD and exclude Stealths and Vipers. Stealth sailors in the UK can decide to go OD and exclude Blades and Vipers. And so on ...

One can always find a reason to exclude another who is different. Humans have done so for centuries with pretty discouraging results.

However, I think the F16 class should remain inclusive of everyone and I for one will never ask a Taipan F16 sailor to hang 23 kg of lead off his boat. I even think that to be a safety issue.

Therefore I will always favour to welcome both Taipan and Viper sailors to F16 events as indeed I will welcome Stealth, Blade, and Falcon sailors. A minimum weight of 107 kg is perfectly suited to that situation; it is inclusive of everyone whether they sail a pre-2007 AHPC product (Taipan) or a post-2007 AHPC product (Viper).

In all honesty, the F16 class can hardly ask its current class members and the other three builders to go back on their investments over the last 8 years and start pricing out lead. Or risk running afoul of class rule 4.6.5. (max 7.0 kg of corrector weights).


So, if the Viper sailors wish to create their own OD class then I wish them the very best.

Yet somehow, I still expect many Viper sailors to still commit adultry with respect to an event like the Global Challenge, Autralian nationals or the Gulfport invitational.


With kind regards,

Wouter

Wouter,

I'm glad to read you. I always like your post. I think I got your point. However, don't you think that if one F16 design become overly numerous, there is more chance for it to go OD?
Would this be a different situation than the one you describe with the Blade sailors in nederlands? And if so, would you agree that the risk of vipers going OD is increased compared to other F16 design?

I think Simon is out in his shed trying to weigh his all carbon boat.... And his scales are not showing him the weight he would like to see...

It's not all Carbon; It's got a Carbon mast; Carbon beams and some Carbon and Kevlar in the layup around the beam trays and a few other areas; I'm sure John P would give you a rough idea how he lays the boats up to get them down to weight; He can manage it building on his own, in his workshop, which is an old stable.

As for weight; last time it was weighed, it was just under weight. As stated above; Blades have been built down to weight without using Carbon.

Macca,

How are you getting on with getting the F18's and A classes to up their Min weight? As you've not answered that question, I assume they are not keen?

That is not entirely correct; there is always carbon to be found in the foils.

Hell, even the F18 class modified their class rules to allow for carbon fibres there as the quantities (cost) used there are so small that it is not worth fuzzy over.

If you meant no carbon in mast, beams and hulls then yes your statement is true.

Wouter

OK, so a bit of carbon in the foils....


Now, back to Macca, how is the process of getting the all up weight of the A and F18 up?

Simon,

When your Carbon F16 weighs in at 80kg then I will start to give you some cred..

remember, you have carbon hulls, beams, mast and foils on a 16ft boat so it should weigh around the same as an A class which is built with the same materials... and don't forget, I am giving you a 5kg allowance for the extra sails and you are even 2ft shorter in hull length and more so in mast height..

Nope; I have SOME carbon in my hulls. I do not need to have a boat down to 80kg, YOU state it's possible.

There is no need, we just continue to build down to 104 / 107. This is being done. There is no need to build down to 80.

If you wish to propose the min weight is changed, join the class when you own a recognised F16 and propose it. That is the only way to change the class rules.


So, to summarise, you state it should be possible to build a F16 to 80 kg; The current class rules state 104 / 107kg. You have been told a number of times how to propose a rule change.

I do not see there is a need for more discussion. Just get a recognised F16; join the AUS assoication, propose the rule change it can then be voted on.


Discussion over as far as I am concerned.

A formula class always runs that risk.

However, it doesn't matter much whether that risk is small or large as there is almost nothing a formula class can do about it. In fact, it can even be debated whether it should want to do anything about it. It will only risk upsetting its dedicated base over the uncertain assurances of a group that is already considering leaving the fold.

The only thing a formula class can do is keep its own house in order and make participation in its events attractive. Each individual boat owner will then decide for himself what he finds most attractive. Indeed, a formula class and an OD class can also co-exist harmoniously. It doesn't have to be split. Many F18 designs hold their own OD championships and it doesn't appear to impact negatively on the F18 class.

I feel that the only real threat to a formula class is when the number of builders committed to it drops down to only 1, then you get a hostile take over as was the case with the F20 class. However, most of the time the company doing the take-over distroys his own prospects in the process. Members of a formula class generally don't take well to a change over to very strict OD rules forcing them to buy everything from a single overprized supplier. Especially not when before some date they could source their stuff from whatever supplier they prefered.

In fact this is an interesting viewpoint altogether as at this moment the F16 class is alot more likely to degrade to a single builder by raising the min weight then by NOT raising the minimum weight. Three out of four F16 builders do NOT support raising the minimum weight and most certainly not to the level of the current Viper. I don't see how upsetting three builders to carry favour with one other builder would at al improof the position of the class, no matter how many members that particular builder may find on his side.





To be honest I think there is too much huffing and puffing on account of the Vipers. Note that I do not say that the Viper owners themselves are doing much of that. I don't think the numbers of Vipers sold warrant any strutting around just yet.

Sure the past GC saw a large contingent of Vipers; there were 10 of them out 24 participants. That is still a majority of non-vipers when also noting that these 10 Vipers were previously Alter Cup boats and available for charter at this GC. I don't think there are currently more then 15 Vipers in the whole USA.

Personally, I don't think the owners of the Viper are at all interested in a Viper OD class; there is none on the horizon. I think they bought the Viper because they liked the package it offered as a F16 and don't fuzz over its ready-to-sail weight. I think they got the right end of the stick here.

I also don't see much effort on behalf of other F16's to go strict OD. I think the vast majority understand that we are strong when we are united.

Wouter

DSK78 will soon be old school, haha. Southern Spars makes a very very nice carbon rod stay system. And it is extremely thin, so windage definitely minimised, and extremely light. If it can take a person running into at 25 knots in a massive nose dive, should be up to the job.