Media Release
For immediate release
03 March 2010

OLYMPIC PAIR CHANGE TACK



Rivals on the water for years, multiple Olympians and sailing world champions Darren Bundock and Carolijn Brouwer have joined forces in a new business venture set to create waves for a new generation of sailors.

With the Tornado catamaran dropped from the Olympic program for 2012, the talented multihull sailors are starting a new chapter in their lives, which they hope will help spark a resurgence of interest in the sport of sailing.

The long-term goal of the pair is to establish a circuit for the best young sailors in the world complete with professional teams, professional racing, professional coaching and professional media coverage.

Australian Bundock along with Brouwer, who represented both Belgium and The Netherlands in the international arena, will invest their years of experience at the forefront of multihull sailing to make the venture successful.

“We love sailing and want everyone else to love it as much as we do and the best way to do that is to find a class of boat that is attractive to sailors due to its high-performance and speed but is also media and spectator friendly,’’ Brouwer said. “And we believe we have done that with the C2 Formula 18 and the Viper F16.’’

Two-time Olympic silver medallist Bundock and female multiple world champion and round-the-world sailor Brouwer have formed 2B Sailing through which they will distribute in Europe the C2 Formula 18 and the Viper F16 _ two multihulls set to take European waters by storm and given the stamp of approval by two of the best multihull sailors on the planet.

Bundock and Brouwer, the two B’s, will bring to the venture the dedication, attention to detail and passion that helped them become two of the best and most recognised Olympic sailors in the world and will also act as dealers in The Netherlands and Belgium.

The C2 Formula 18 is a high-performance racing machine set to impress with a spinnaker, double trapeze and square-top mainsail and set to thrill with its capacity for speed.

The two-person Viper has been designed as a potential feeder class and pathway to high-performance sailing for a younger generation of sailors, both male and female.

“These boats are seriously fun, seriously great to sail and fill a gap in the market,’’ Bundock said.
“We see the Viper as a problem solver as it is the perfect boat for youth, women or mixed crews with an ideal weight combination of between around 115 to 145 kilos.”

“The C2 Formula 18 is just a weapon. It is fast, state-of-the-art and so exciting to sail. It is a boat designed to be a winner on and off the race track.’’

In its first ever regatta, the C2 Formula 18 exceeded even Bundock and Brouwer’s expectations when it raced to a first and second in the Australian championships over the Southern Hemisphere summer. Just weeks later the Viper F16 caused heads to turn when it claimed line honours in a marathon in Sydney, Australia, beating the bigger Formula 18’s and Tornados.

“We believe these boats are the way forward for sailing,’’ Brouwer said. “They are fast, spectacular and fun. That is what sport is about.’’




For further information about the C2 Formula 18 and the Viper F16 please go to our website www.2Bsailing.eu


-ENDS-


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR HIGH RESOLUTION IMAGES PLEASE CONTACT:



2B Sailing
High Performance Catamarans

Darren Bundock & Carolijn Brouwer
Phone: +31 70 891 9400
Mobile: (AUS) +61 419 885 665
Skype: darren_bundock or cmbrouwer
Email: info@2bsailing.eu
Web: www.2Bsailing.eu
Twitter: 2Bsailing

The website also states that they are now also the EU importer for both boats (in addition to dealors/promotors. That is excellent news in my opinion !

One of the problems I was having with the current F16 class setup is the concentration of F16 assets in only two pair of hands. Again I deeply respect both Hans and Pieter for their workmanship but grouping the dealorship/importer status of no less then 4 different F16 designs (Blade, Viper, Falcon and now Raptor) and the class chairman function and chief measurer respectively is too intimate for my taste. Not to mention that Pieter himself is very active in the A-cat class as a dealer and as the founder of this rival class. He also held the importer/dealor status for the AHPC F18 boats.

All together, this is a concentration of influence and power that not even I came close to when I peaked several years ago. Hence my earlier posting of this weekend. I feel the class must strive to end this monopoly (there is simply no other word for it).

It seems that the first step to a new future has now been taken by transfering the C2 and Viper products to 2Bsailing.

Of course it is also excellent news because the class is now reinforced by two excellent sailors and personalities. This is simply a promotional dream come true. I'm personally thrilled !

Wouter

Hang about Wouter I'm going to ignore the majority of your post. However, I'm not convinced that this is a promotional dream etc. I can see your point of view quite clearly but that doesn't necessarily mean that 2B share the same views, in fact I would imagine the last thing they would really want to do is to market the Viper as a F16 when all their competitors are significantly lighter. Although, what would be even worse is that they could add some credibility to the disfunctional 1.04 Class.
I do hope you are right and 2B will prove successful both for the Viper and F16 but lets not get our hopes up too soon.

I think I share your concerns in this respect.

But with respect to the EU market I feel that beggars can't be choosers.

Pesonally, I see this development as a perfect opportunity to coopt the momentum. The main thing we need to avoid is to give the Viper 100 % of the EU market share. Right now AHPC is treating the F104 as additional feature (rightly so). Additionally the Viper will blow away the other F104 as it is just so much more developed. Basically, its only real competition are the other F16's like the Falcon, Blades and Stealths. AHPC still links itself to the F16 class and we should make sure the F16 class remains attractive to AHPC. Right now both still benefit greatly from eachother and there is no reason why this can't be maintain indefinately.

What we need to do is make sure that the Falcon, Blade and Stealths sales move with the Viper sales. Thus presenting the situation where the Viper sailor can choose between his own OD class or a larger F16 fleet. This is two-way street, but requires some careful manouvring by the other builders, agents and the F16 class as a whole.

This is the time for the F16 class to show great leadership. Leadership that can turn a potential dangerous situation around into a very beneficial one.

If we all do this right then we'll see the F16 class become an international class with a size comparable to the F18's and A-cats.

This is our big break guys, Bundock or Brouwer promo-ing an F16 !, lets hit that ball over the fence !

Wouter

P.S.


Have you seen the 2Bsailing twitter listing ?

"RT@DarrenBundock: Great sailing yest. So impressed with the Vipers performance with 160kg crew weight against 4 of the worlds best ... "

Among other great references to the Viper F16 and its performance.

Wouter

It is with an extremely heavy heart that I find myself typing this. I had promised myself that I would not stoop to answer the nonsense and vitriol being spouted. BUT:

I find the constant use of the word 'we' to be quite objectionable.
Wouter was given every opportunity to become a member of the F16 Class - yet not only did he refuse to do so, he also refused to assist the class with the transfer of the F16 domain name (even though he was offered all his costs incurred during the previous 3 years in return for so doing). This resulted in additional costs to the class in having to purchase a new domain (.net)

Therefore I find his resurgent zeal and use of "we" to be utterly distasteful. His constant tub-thumping over what a clever person he is to have founded the F16 Class is also objectionable - sure he HELPED to formulate a box-rule that several builders signed up to and it proved to be a very workable, attractive formula with great potential.
However, the class that we see growing today has come about as a result of a LOT of very hard backroom work by the Governing Council, and the faith, investment and goodwill of a number of boat builders. I won't decry the effort that Wouter at al put in at the start but for 5 years the F16 format floundered around with slow growth until the Governing Council was formed.
The F16 Class has a formal, voted for Constitution, it has Associations and it has a membership structure. As far as I'm concerned (and I suspect many people will agree with me), if you are not a member of something it is patently wrong to attempt to portray yourself as being part of it. Especially so when you've actually said you don't want to be part of it!

I write this as an F16 sailor NOT as Secretary - while it is difficult to divorce my feelings in either role, this is not an official response from the GC but my personal outpourings over what I see to be grave misrepresentation and unfair treatment of individuals who have given time, effort and their own money to further the growth of the F16 Class.

I was on the boat with him, And we where 164kgs. Sailing in around a 15knots of breeze, And we where nearly always around the top mark 2 or 3rd, depending on what happened up the work. But the boat was very impressive, And i'm by no way one of the top saiors in the world.

I strongly disagree with as good as every single point made by John Alani in his posting.

I will detail my disagreement in the next posting; for those who want to know the details. The others may skip it and just ponder the following question.

Why would I (Wouter) lie ?

What can I possibly gain by doing so. I'm not seeking any official position in the class nor possess any commercial link to it.

Any disbelievers are invited to pick up the phone and call a guy like Greg Goodall and ask him who wrote the F16 class rules; who the founders are and who he spoke too most often (almost exclusively)during the first years.

Wouter

<**** on this one.

I was given an ultimatum (through back channels); hand over all remaining resources that I held of the F16 class and then transfer money to become a paying class member.

I found that both disrespectful and unwise.

If such a transfer is to be made then I expect the chairman or some other relevant member of the council to contact me directly and in an official capacity (meaning without the clause of secrecy). I also found the "handing them over free of charge and then pay for your membership" to be a bit unpolite (putting it mildly).

I offered a compromise back. I would continue to pay for the resources myself and continue to allow the class to use them unlimited as was indeed the case ever since the beginning in 2001. In return I asked for a free-of-charge membership as the costs incurred by me through the URL's were annually already 3 times the cost of a membership. Thus I implicetly offered the GC a sponsor deal that helped them pay for the class costs. However, immediately afterwards the airways went completely blank for 3 months straight.

So later in that winter I contacted my backchannel person again and asked him what was going on and whether a deal was still sought.

A reply came back (still through back channels) restating the same original demand as given at the top of this post. At that time I was having flashbacks of my measurement certificate problems (100 Euro's) and PS implied reaction of "What are you going to do about it?". So I added up all the cost that I made over the years for just the URL's and the incomplete (invalid?) measurement certificate and rounded the number off to the nearest round number; being 1000 Euro's. Then I returned my second counteroffer; the GC would either accept my original counteroffer OR pay me 1000 Euro's and accept a grand bargain where the resources would be transfered to some trusted F16 class offical other then Pieter Saarberg or Hans Klok. My contact asked me if the F16 web officer Paul Warren would be considered a trusted person by me. I replied positively and demanded a written contract that barred either PS or HS from ever acquiring these resources personally or by proxy. The grand bargain also included a written statement from the GC that would recognize my tenure as the founding class chairman. I had found that some people were downplaying my activities a little bit too much. No further need to go into details here.

The response was again silence and a while later the formula16.net URL was introduced.

Before we continue; why did I refuse PS and HS control over the last remaining F16 resources ? Already at that time I found that this father and son nexus was controlling far too much class assets with respect to the F16 class as a whole and the EU market in particular. I had already found with my own measurement certificate dispute that one person would provide cover for the other. That my connection to the F16 class was systematically and increasingly understated. I found the downright refusal to complete my measurement form suspect. My boat was declared by PS as being compliant at the GC2007 but I can easily see my compliance being revoked at any given time on the basis of an imcomplete certicate. The refusal to contact me directly concerning the final deal (despite public claims to the contrary)made me extra cautious. I was not going to give both of them a stronger hold on things then they already had. When I founded the F16 class together with Phill Brander and Kirt Simmons we all shared a vision of how the class was supposed to be. I never envisioned my own unitarian chairmanship to be anything but temporary; as a result I don't see any point in replacing my all powerful myself of those founding days by an all power other. Last but not least I seriously disagree with creating a monopoly inside the F16 class.


It appears now that John Alani is buying wholesale into the myth of me just fiddling about during the first 5 years and getting lucky. The same argument is dissimated repeatedly by HS even when it comes down to other roles I've succesfully forfilled such as the WVZ race-officer. So I also call BS on the other statements that you have made.




Actually, every single letter of the F16 class rules (barring the post 2006 modifications) was written by me on my computer. It was inputted and proof read by several people most noteably Phill Brander. During formulation of the class rules I was in contact with a score of people (Like Goodall, Pierce, Petrucci and Scott Anderson) and I actively negociated a rule-set that all could agree upon. This was the many months long hallway lobbying that I also refered to in some other recent posting. For example ; you can call Greg Goodall and ask him how many times I phoned him up at my own expense and for how long. Next to that the F16 class rules are based on a mathematic/physical singularity and that is why a smaller boat like the F16 is just as fast as the larger F18. Quite some thought went into the values that are quoted in the F16 class rules. It was actively engineered towards that "great potential". I don't have an university degree in Mechanical, Maritime and Material engineering for nothing !

So I didn't just HELP formulate the rules, the builders didn't just SIGN UP to it and it didn't simply PROOF to be attractive/performant. It was the result of a year long process of going back and forth between different parties while trying to hammer out a shared vision that had clear underpinnings in physics. This project costed me many hundreds if not thousants of Euro's; not to mention the huge amount of my spare time.

Anybody who thinks you can do a thing like this any differently is guaranteed to be fool and a failure.

So John, on which side of the fence do you want to come down ?





I rather think that the Alter Cup 2007 was the result of Matt and a group of US enthousiats, much like the Gulfport invitation events are. Alter Cup 2009 was the result of AHPC, Fun in the Suun (Robbie/Jill) and again a group of US enthousiasts. The Viper F16 was already on the drawingboard with Greg promising an official launch when I passed my responsibities on to the GC. The Blade design had been finished at that time and I had already secured the superwing mast deal for all F16 builders. VWM had already launched their Blade F16 version and I had arranged for the first sale and import of the that boat to NL (EU). Earlier I had achieved the sale and import of Taipan F16's which agents like Sven Lindstadt in Germany carried. Stealth was already on board and had launched the Stealth F16 3 years before my departure; again the first boats to be exported to mainland EU were arranged by me). The Aussie Blade project was started at the time and not much later I designed the Blade and Falcon beams together with Phill. I had also managed to create interest in far off places like Shanghai, Norway, Finland, Brazil, etc and I'm sure that I'm forgetting many other developments. Of course the last action I took was the active formation of the Governing Council where I personally contacted and invited you (and all others) to take a position in that body.

All that and more where Phill Brander, Kirt Simmons and I started out with absolutely nothing at all. In fact we were the laughing stock of the forums as everybody simply knew that a 16 footer could never be that fast or affordable lightweight.



By my estimate the GC started their leg of the race with a class running and did the GC2007 in Zandvoort (with lots of help from WVZ volunteers) and the GC2008 at Mumbles (with lots of help from the locals there). They also formalized the measurement forms and then split the F16 forums (humm). The new website was already created under my tenure but expanded by Rolf, Gill and others to the point where it is now. Since my departure no new builders were attracted to the class and the EU market penetration is after 4 years at about the same point where I left it. A few boats were indeed sold but I won't bring up the recent Dutch F16 nationals (organized by HS and PS ?). Of course several regions have formed their class associations but I know that for example Phill was the main force behind the AUS association where the format was almost entirely dictated by Australian law. I already knew that Phill was a hard working dependable man before the GC was formed; so I fail to see the other in the GC can lay claim to that success. USA association was largely formed under guidence of Matt McD and the US enthousiasts.


Of course I too think that the GC did excellent work over their tenure; but they do appear to be a little delussional when it comes down to F16 class history.




As the co-founder and the first chairman I will always be part of the class no matter what your membership listing says.




Indeed, at this time I refuse to legitimize the current situation by requesting a membership. That doesn't mean however that I don't want to be part of the F16 class. I will most likely get a membership when the situation has been improved.

By the way is the class constitution still secret ?






Ahhh, put a sock in it John. You never thought twice about dissing me despite the time, effort and my own money that I have invested in this class.

You are applying a double standard here.


In fact, there is not a single untruthful thing in my posting. So yeah indeed, somebody is lying here. My question to you (all) is why you are so certain that it is me ? What do I have gain/loose ? It is not me who has monopolized valuable F16 class assets, is it ? I'm not even offering myself for any future GC position or class official status. Nor do I have any commercial link to the class at this time.

So why would I lie ?

Wouter

Wow man !

Getting driven around on a F16 by the likes of mr Bundock.

That is what I call a wet dream !

Wouter

Wouter,

you accuse many poeple of many things.

However you want to dress it up to make YOU feel better; you were holding our class to ransom as you personally held the old URL; you told us you wanted considerable amonts of money for "your costs" to give up this URL to the F16 GC.

You made it clear you wanted MONEY.

Many people have joined the association and a fair number of us have provided funds and time to help the class. The F16 class forum was NOT financed from class funds; a few committed people stumped up the cash to buy the software; those people do not crave the limelight of recognition; they offerend because it was the right thing to do.

Others within the class have provided funds to facilitate things the class needs to do; they to do not wish this to be public or crave attention.

They did it for the good of the class.

From my pouint of view; your latest posting are trying to damage the class I love and many others do to.

Please stop.

For the record the F16 members were called to vote democratically on the issue of Wouter ransom note for the domain name and the result of the vote was overwhelming: don't pay that guy a dime and don't give him a free membership.

If you are a F16 member you can go look at the vote and the discussion, it's all there for you to see. Nothing hidden.

Wouter,

You claim:



If this is really the case, can you please explain why formula16.org and formula16.com, the domain names that we previously relied on, are now in the hands of domain squatters, rather than promoting the class that the rest of us want to see succeed?

Actually, please don't. It's been a long time since you've said anything on this forum that has been in the best interests of the class.

Paul

F 16 is Wouter, Phill and Kirt...if the class is not giving the three of them lifetime free memberships to their own brain child, the GC should be shot, hung and drowned....not necessarly in that order. To not grant them that respect is wrong on so many levels I wouldn't know where to begin.

Remember if it wasn't for the countless hours of time Wouter, Phill and Kirt gave for free you wouldn't even have a class. Chew on that for a while.

I don't know what the going rate is for an engineer in Europe, but her in the US it would be easy to spend $1,000 for a day of their time, let alone the amount of hours these gentelmen invested. Sounds like the GC was offered the deal of the century and were to short sited to see what they were offered.

Funny how Wouter is suppose to pay 100 euros for a measurment of his boat and no one has a problem with that...but as one of the driving forces behind forming a the F16 Catamaran class and spending years of free time... many are offended that he tried to recoup just a fraction of the time/money he layed out and asked for a waver on the membership dues....unbelievable....

Looks like someone has an inferiority complex and needs validation... So what else is new. Wouter did a fine job of promoting F16 but more importantly for him he was able to promote himself.

F16 was based on the Taipan platform, so no big deal really.

[quote=Buccaneer]Looks like someone has an inferiority complex
....and delusions of grandeur. But don't you blokes be too abusive as it takes all kinds. Although the Big W is a pain in the butt it is apparent that he has a lot of technical knowledge which would be a pity to see lost from the Class.

+1

Interesting that "you guys" felt "okay" with demanding me to simply hand over the resources (with over 700 bucks incurred costs) through back channels but didn't feel up to the task to come back at me and notify me of that result.

What am I to think here ?

I think that I have been involved in some dirty game where I myself are out of the loop of some important developments.

I always negociated with the best intentions but I can't say that I feel the other side has.

Who the "other side" is exactly, I don't know, but I don't believe they are the regular class members.

I also wonder why you use the describtion of "ransom note"; I don't remember writing anything down like that. I do remember writing down a "sponsor deal" ; where I incurred higher costs annually in favor of the class then just a membership. I have always allowed the class unlimited use of these resources EVEN DURING the negociations and afterwards. It was the class who decided to migrate to www.formula16.net for their own reasons, NOT because I disallowed use the ones I controlled.

If that is not a show of good intentions then I don't know what is.

And now I find that all the blame is being laid on my shoulders.

Like I said I feel that I have been part of a dirty game without me knowing it.





Is it ? Then why, I ask you, was I never contacted about this in an official manner ?

Wouter

You're indefatigable. If you want to pm me, I'll go through this with you.

I happen to appreciate your wealth of knowledge and enyoy your (sometimes scathing) sarcasm. But you're a hard man to talk to.

Unfortunately, imo, dialog with you is seen as negatively impacting the class. I won't do it online.

Yes I can.

After the abuse I received from both the GC, F16 chief measurer and now an increasing group of class members (who form their opinion on actively dissimated yet incorrect information), I felt no longer bound to incurr costs on behalf of a class that doesn't appear to give me any respect.

As was stated by Pepin "the result of the vote was overwhelming : don't pay that guy a dime ...". So why do you still believe that I should pay alot more then a dime to "do the right thing" under those circumstances ?

I payed several hundred bucks alone over the years to maintain the URL's and continued to do so well after the "negociations" and the migration to the .net url. I think that I did my best. All I got in return was that all blame was laid on my shoulders and untruths being propelled like I only "helped" form the class and that the class rules "somehow got lucky" in being succesful.





In fact, all I have said is in the interest of the class. The current GC completing their tenure in a year and making room for a new blood IS in the best interest of the class.

I give the dealings with regard to my person as one example out of several. (notice the hint !) We really don't want similar things to happen with say event sponsors etc, hosting clubs, etc.

The GC could have handled all of this alot better and even come out ahead in class budget. But they didn't, they actually achieved the worst result they could get. Not a good showcase of (essential) skills.

Therefore I bring attention again to my proposal to have the current GC complete their tenure in a year, thank them deeply for the services rendered, and then replace them by an new GC.

Wouter

And that at this time is still INCOMPLETE, despite requests/complaints from my side.

The measurer (also chief F16 measurer) refuses to note down the weight of my F16 on my measurement form, despite the fact that my boat is 15 kg overweight with respect to the minimum class weight.

Stated reason is that that is the way "they" do it in the A-class and that boat weights may change (or be modified) over time (but sail area and other dimensions may not ?). Funny that all F18 measurement forms (the true parent of the f16 class) do show the measured weights.

Personally I would love for my boat to just age 15 kg lighter but that is probably my sarcastic persona !

Other then that I would like to have a fully legal measurement form when I pay 100 Euro's to get one. Or is that my attention seeking alter-ego ?


Honestly, I'm really not making this stuff up !

Wouter

Wouter. to be fair the issue of exact weight is a red herring.

The box rule states only a minimum weight not maximum!.
Secondly there is a logic to not to raise exact weight. That is ratings!!
If one F16 weights 105 and another is 140kg then under the rating systems we have two separate ratings for the class!! So unless you wish to split the class only the minimum weight box needs ticking.

both of these arguments you already know..

Stewart

The issue is not about the absolute values of the weight (other then that my boat is indeed compliant)

The issue is about whether an incomplete measurement form (with not all fields being filled in) is legitimate. In my case the field reserved for specifying the ready-to-sail weight is left open. If it had said "compliant" then yes the situation would have been better but it doesn't.

In my opinion there is no good argument in maintaining this situation.

Either the Chief measurer himself intentionally supplied me with an incomplete and invalid measurent form. (maintaining his stance when made aware of this)

Or the class will now accept incomplete measurement forms as being valid and thus open a can of worms for the long term.



I feel we should only consider COMPLETE measurement forms as being valid and indeed this also seems to be the spirit of the F16 class rules such as suggested by the wording of say rule 3.2.4

Wouter

F18 measurers in the US leave the all-up weight box blank. All-up weight is checked at major events for compliance, but because variability in lines, blocks, tillers, ect., can be expected throughout the season, our measurers are not required to fill the box in - just check for compliance.

From Your Parent

The measurement form is available here: http://www.formula16.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=21 if you have access.

A group of us will be traveling to Coral Gables for a training seminar with Carla Schiefer on the 23rd. We expect to be up and running with full certification, to include weighing and measuring, for the Nationals.

As most of us will be newly trained, expect the process to be a little rough around the edges.

is it incomplete?>

If the weight is over minimum then I believe their only needs a box saying above min weight. just a tick..
nothing more..

besides at every major event one should expect to be weighed. why .. easy to take out lead weights or put on lighter blocks etc..

Wouter.

How many times do you have to be told the same thing?

The weight is NOT recored as this means that for the certificate to be valid; the boat MUST weigh what it says on the cert. If the weight changes then the certificate is no longer valid.


As for incurring 700 euro for the website over the 7 years or so you hald the URL; you were a mug to spend so much. The URL SHOULD have cost you about 5EUR per annum to hold; who was the ISP that charged you 95EUR per annum to host the site?

The F18 class in Europe records the total weight on the cert.

if your boat is underweight on the cert then you must carry correctors up to this weight unless there is a weigh in at the event, in that case the weights for that event are used and correctors applied accordingly.

Same goes for the Tornado class....

But I am sure the F16 class knows better

macca actually the F16 class does know better..

There are reasons and Im sure you will eventually work them out...

So, by that reasoning, I can have an F16 that weighs 75kg and then race in all the events throughout the year without carrying weight unless there is a weigh in at the event??

And by that same reasoning so could every other racing dinghy from Opi to Tornado.
However,the majority of people I know and race against are fully aware of the basic principle of sportsmanship and the rules and abide by the 2nd Rule of Racing.

Incorrect, The F18 and Tornado have the total boat weight and correctors marked on the measurement certificate. If your boat is under the min weight then you must carry the corrector weights shown on your measurement certificate. Its easy to check if someone is carrying 3kg (as per a cert) of lead at an event rather than measuring an entire boat...

But like I said, I am sure the F16 class knows better

Macca,
Where did we say that corrector weights aren't shown on the cert???
It is perfectly reasonable to state that a boat is over minimum weight and still list the corrector weights required to be in class.
It should then be obvious that if a boat has correctors listed on its certificate that it should always race with those weights in place unless the boat is reweighed and the certificate amended as necessary.
I can recall several of my Tornados having the corrector weight amended in this way over time.

guess I need to teach you to read all the thread..

" F18 measurers in the US leave the all-up weight box blank. All-up weight is checked at major events for compliance, but because variability in lines, blocks, tillers, ect., can be expected throughout the season, our measurers are not required to fill the box in - just check for compliance.

From Your Parent
_________________________
John Williams
F18 USA 70"

Maybe you could argue John Williams doesn't know much about the F18 or cat sailing.. This will be an interesting discussion... *reaching for the popcorn*...

then maybe the F16 actually knows what its doing...

Actually, John said that they don't do it in the USA and we all know how many things they do wrong over there

The EU fleet of F18 is a well run professional scene, much like the Tornado was when it was Olympic. These two classes use the approach I described and both are ISAF recognised classes...

Why would you have a section on a measurement cert for a total boat weight and then leave it blank??? Might as well leave other details blank too, like length, sail area and beam??

Looks like winter has been too long for you guys

I really hope it gets warmer soon so we can see some posts about sailing and racing.........

I never thought I would say this but I actually agree with Macca here.

Without weighing the boat I don't see how you can be F18 compliant.
The rules require that the measurer put a sticker on the hull stating the all-up weight, which has to be the same number as stated on the certificate.
It is also a lot less work to weigh it once instead of at every mayor event.

Measurement Rules: http://www.f18-international.org/rmeasurem.htm

****. At all of the F18 championships and many of the regional events, boats are weighed and sails are checked. Guess how many boats failed a measurement check in the last six years. US F18 racing has been growing steadily and competition is fantastic, and for six years we've managed certification differently than the EU. So if the F16 Class has decided that they are going to manage things in a different manner than the EU F18s have done, it is petty and inaccurate to chime in that it can't work for them.

Forest. Trees.

John, As most Capricorn's come under the F18 class min weight they are generally required to carry correctors. Without having the boat weight and correctors marked on the cert its not possible to regulate the compliance unless you do a complete weigh in of all boats.

Why make it harder than you have to? Simply do an initial full measure of the boat including weight, note that weight and required correctors on the cert and then unless the boat is measured again or weighed at an event it needs to carry the correctors shown on the cert. Then there is no cause for any questions over the compliance of the boats weight.

All this discussion isn't so relevant for the F16 though: they are all over the min weight anyway

But if we had listened to you Macca, we would have raised the min wt. and have to carry correctors and have stickers too....great ideas you have. Thanks for your valuable input.

Then your class would be taken more seriously..

2be or not 2be
I think this Class is starting "to be" taken seriously.

More seriously by whom? You? Hahahaaa

Yeah, we really care what you think!

Haaahahaha, good one Macca! You crack me up!

hell, I own a F16, and I don't take is seriously. Its a dumbass little sailboat that enjoy floating around on. Past that who gives a crap.

Ahh, you mean the Viper? the boat that is how much over the F16 class min weight??? So I guess it won't need correctors any time soon!

Ha, Ha, HA. ZING!!! you got them there! WAY TO GO MACCA!!!!

Ah but the Viper is over weight by choice, not because it cannot comply to the class weight. It has traded the commercial cost saving of using heavier beams etc from its bigger brother and larger volume by design ( again by choice ), against the heavier weight penalty. Those commercial desicions have not handicapped the boat at all, it will become a very sucessful design within the F16 class.

There are a number of manufacturers who are now building to design weight and there is no reason why AHPC by design could not as well, it is their choice.

Just one thing about beam size... The width of the boat controls the size of the beams.... The length is irrelevant. There is little difference between the width of the F16 and the F18. Hence, if you want a stiff F16, you will need to have beams very similar to those used on a stiff F18..... OR go for CARBON... and accept that price tag!

Scooby,

I have never seen a 5 bucks annual fee for any URL and think this to be a total BS quote.

Prices have come down, but that also means that I'd paid more in the earlier years. In the beginning the exchange rate between the Euro and Dollar was kind of bad.

There was also an initial "administration fee" and additional fees for some extended features.


Other then that I held two URL's and payed for both of them.

I acquired them in (late) 2001 and they were freed in (late) 2009; by my counting that makes for 8 years of double payments or about 40 bucks per year per URL on average (excluding the initial admin fee). Which is quite reasonable in my experience.

In short, the quote was accurate. I'm really not trying to scam the class here. Additionally, I truly wonder why anybody would ever have endeared such a thought.


The company I was with was register.com (based in the USA)


Wouter

I hold a couple of .com URL;s one that is being used by me right now; the fee for the URL has just gone UP to 2.95USD per annum. No BS.

Maybe I've mis-uderstood; is the 80USD PA for a full hosted webspace package; if so that's not so bad; most are around 50-80USD per annum for a fairly small site (say 25 email addresses, 15,000 MB per month data trasfer and 500BM storage and MySQL database support)

WRONG !

The flexing of the beams is determined by the size of the crosssection, the length AND the size of loads placed on them.

The latter two ARE significantly different from the F18 design and therefore the first can be significantly different from the F18 design as well while maitaining the same overall stiffness.

The loads placed on the beams are directly linked to the displacement of the hulls. How else can the boat twist or bend them ? The overall volume of the F16 hulls are (5/5.52)^3 = 75% of that of the F18's. That is then the maximal ratio to what the F16's beams can be subjected too. A similar reasoning is valid for the mast step load.

The flexing of the beams is related to overall length of the beams by the thir power. Or rather to the unsupported span of the beams. This means that a typical F18 flexes by (1.9/1.8)^3 = 118 % when compared to a typical F16 when only looking at beam lengths.

Combining these two ratio's results in the F18 flexing by 158 % when compared to a F16 when identical crossectional beams are used. Quite a difference, I say !

In layman's terms this means that the wallthickness of the F18 beams can be reduced to 63% while maintaining identical flexing during sailing. Of course there are other factors as well that improve this situation further, like the fact that the F16 hulls are shorter and therefor have the beams have to flex more to lift the bows by the same amount. This is felt as additional stiffness.

Grouping all these factors and ending with the same flexing of the bows while sailing (assuming both boats encounter the same height of waves) result in the F16 beams only requiring 55% of stiffness (crossectional) that a F18 needs. Basically, if the wallthickness and shape of both beams is maintained then the F16 beams will weight only 74% of the F18 versions. If all reduction in stiffness is handled by reductions in wallthickness (maintaining identical overall shape and size of the beams) then the F16 beams only need to weight 55% of the F18 versions. The real figure will lay somewhere between these two extremes.

Notice that a pair of bare beams can easily be 10 kg combined; this means a weight saving from the range of 2.6 kg to 4.5 kg is possible while maintaining the same overall effective platform stiffness between the F18 and F16.

That is a difference worth noting, I think.

Replacing the aluminium by carbon will only win you 3 kg over the full set at much increased costs. Designing specilized alu F16 beams while applying basic engineering skills wins you about the same amount for very small costs indeed. See another recent thread about the cost of having an extrusion die made and fabricating/shipping a batch of beams. That is why the last route was taken by Formula catamarans Aus and VectorWorks Marine (now Falcon marine).

Again, similar paths can be given for items such as the daggerboards. Here the F18 boards weight at least 3.0 kg a piece (as per class rule) while the F16 boards (just as dependable, but unregulated by class rules) are between 1.6 and 1.8 kg a board. Rudderstocks, same story. Then add all this up and you'll see that a glass/alu F16 at 111 kg is viable. Replace the superwing by a carbon mast (at minimal tipweight of 6.0 kg) and the ready to sail F16 will be spot on 107 kg and still not cost more then a modern F18.

Now we have also covered the reason why the glass/alu F16's are overweight to the min. class weight by a few kg's. The builders rightly reason that it is not economically attractive to offer the carbon mast upgrade if the weight savings there are matched by lead corrector weights. So they aim for a glass/alu weight that will see the ready to sail weight with a carbon mast upgrade end up right at the class minimum. Any serious racer will buy the carbon mast and any buyer looking for a cheaper F16 will not fret over being 4 kg overweight.

Wouter

Macca,

I agree with you on the measurement certificate issue. (Thanks for your support !)

The class rules envisioned fully filled out measurement forms as is the trend with serious classes like the F18's and Tornado's (and hinted at in F16 class rule 3.2.4.)

With respect to using lead blocks and heavy lines to scam the measuring proces, that is why the F16 class rules include the following class rule :


3.2.3 The measurer shall record on the measurement form anything he considers as departing from the concept or spirit of the Formula 16 rule, he shall send it with detailed explanations on the contentious points to the Formula 16 Authority for a ruling.


Of course any such scammed boat will be discovered during the weight ins that take please at the larger events. That is why the F16 class has the following rules.


4.1.1 The Formula 16 authority has the right to check the boats for compliance and safety before the race, on the water and right after the race even when a valid measurement certificate has been presented.

4.3.2 During events, the three first finishing boats of the daily sailed races, plus another boat drawn by lot may be checked.


Therefore I completely miss the reasoning leaving the measured weight field blank. This is not consistent with how the F16 class was setup and its rules were written down. Leaving this field open does nothing to combat any boat owner from cheating; it is certainly no better then filling in this field as indeed your corrector weight example proofs.



With respect to area's new to the process of measureing (like the USA) the following rule was included in the F16 class rules.


3.6.1 In the start up phase of the class the Formula 16 authority may hand out a temporary certificates, without actually measuring the craft, based on measurements made on other boats of the same type. Their certificate will become invalid when a proper measuring practice is available to the owner of the temporary certificate.

Nonsense.

Spinakers also stretch over time (increasing the overall area) as do mainsail luffs; but we are still recording those measurements on the certificate.

We must take care to not make the measurement certificate into something that it is not.

The measurement certificate is nothing more then a report of the boat's dimensions when it was measured on the given date (date stamp) from then onwards the following class rules apply :


3.5.2 All modifications or replacements of parts of a significant change, shall be remeasured and notification made on the measurement certificate by a measurer recognized by the Formula 16 Authority.

4.2.1 The competitors are responsible for showing the valid measurement form and
measurement certificate corresponding with the boat used.



There is NO F16 class rule that states that original (unmodified) equipment can invalidate a boat when it has become non-compliant due to aging or wear (I have yet to see a boat grow lighter with age). If all (unmodified/non-replaced) parts used were compliant on the date of their (first) measurement then they will remain so during their lifespans. Not allowing for this will open a can of worms. This opening was intentional when the rules were written.


Besides, a F16 can only be invalidated when it no longer adheres to the limits set out in the box rule, NOT when a certain measurement alters with aging. Therefore the reasoning that the boat MUST weight in at what the measurement certificate says is a reasoning that is alien and non-sensical to the F16 class (and the spirit of its rules). Additionally, if this reasoning is to be maintained then the spinnaker area measurement and the mainsail luff measurement must be left open as well (which is currently not the case). Probably a few other specs too.

Therefore, this whimsical (inconsistent) approach is best ended altogether.

Wouter

Have to agree with Wouter here.

The certificate is for proving a boat has been measured and passed the rules at that time.

If the weight increases over time, it still passes the class rules of a MINIMUM weight. This does not make the measurement certificate invalid.

Every class I have participated in that has a minimum weight operates this way.

I was the measurer for a number of national and state titles in two different classes. Every boat was weighed prior to the Nationals event and if I was feeling sadistic randomly in the nationals or States. Competitors were warned this may happen.. But it wasn't a huge job to do and almost everyone was helpful.. Took maybe 10 minutes if the scales are set up ready..
The thing is when I was measuring I wasnt alone. So any issue was well known by the local fleet.

how many ratings do you want the F16 to have in the same fleet on the same course?

Stewart,




I don't understand your question.

Can you rephrase it for me, please ?


Of course, there is only one rating for all F16's and that is the rating belonging to the (virtual) boat that is maximized under the rules. In principle this produces the fastest possible rating to which all F16's are subjected. When a particular craft is slower by being say overweight then that is the choice that the owner has made for himself. I.E. he accepts that he sails a slower boat and with it the difference in performance to the official F16 rating.

This is always fair to the other competitors and the only party disadvantaged by it is the owner of the slower boat himself.

I am myself an example of such a sailor. My own homebuild is overweight and uses an outdated hull shape; not to mention aging gear (unmodified) throughout. I accept that say a new Falcon owner has an advantage over me as I'm too cheap at this time to buy one myself even when my own boat is now 7 years old and competitively speaking ripe for replacement. I have decided for myself that I will only replace it when I have

-a- enough spare cash laying around doing nothing

or

-b- start finishing consistently within 2 minutes of the leader in class races


Currently my own sailing skills have "aged" as well and I'm first in need of lots of on the water training before I can sail a new 3rd generation F16 (I have a 1st generation boat myself) to its full potential. I can get that practice just as well on my oldy as on a new boat.

Maybe that answers your questions without you rephrasing it.

Wouter

Wouter - I find it very interesting that you so strongly disputed my comment...

I recently discussed this issue with Greg Goodall, and his comment was that when you put a 130+kg of crew weight on the back beam, then the main factors influencing the twist of the boat is the "unsupported beam length" (ie the distance from inner gunwale to inner gunwale), and the distance between the front and back beam.

These distances are very similar on both the F18 & F16. He finished by saying that you MAY get away with making the beams upto 15% smaller without having a significant impact on the stiffness.

Wouter - I challenge you to prove all your theories - DESIGN & BUILD that F16 that will be FASTER than any of the current F16's....

Up until then, sorry, but I will tend to take the advice from Greg Goodall in preference to your views.

its a straight engineering problem.. So should be worked out using standard engineering principles no more no less..

As for building a faster boat.. you forget that is not just an engineering or design issue.. One needs to be as good a sailor as the fastest sailors in the class.. I have never seen Wouter claim that title or ability..

The fastest design with the slowest sailor is still slow..

HJS,

Like Stewart says, it is a straight-up engineering problem.

I don't want to play this on the man here, but Greg is in error here.

All I can add is that I hold a engineering degree in Mechanical, Maritime (Naval) and Materials engineering so this was standard stuff during my education. I have done such analyses many times.





I've already run all the numbers and build the prototype F16 remember. I widened my boat to F16 specs and needed to know how that was done best. I made these calculations about 9 years ago and my boat is still sailing and has the same bow flexing as a nacra F18 (which was popular at the time) when layed up for a stiffness test. My beams are no where the size of the Nacra F18. I used the superwing section as a mainbeam and a 80x2 round tube as the rear beam. I was also closely involved with the beams that were specially designed for the F16 boats and are now featured on the Aussie Blade F16 and Falcon F16.

Therefore I think I have already matched my statements with a boat(s) actually build (along the lines of "all my theories"). My homebuild is here as well as other fruits of my engineering and the F16 class is an international fact. So what have you to show for yourself ?

Besides, Macca is the guy who is on about FASTER F16's I'm just saying that F16 beams can be significantly smaller then a F18 while maintaining identical flexing on the water relative to an F18. Since we sail in the same wave conditions I feel that is sufficient criterium for the F16's. The Viper (with F18 beams) is said to be incredibally stiff and my models do indeed confirm that. Personally, I feel that that is also an issue of diminishing returns.

Please note that all F16 builds use smaller beams then the F18's with AHPC being the only exception; I feel validated by that fact as well. It "sort of suggests" that "my theories" have been peer-reviewed.

Regards,

Wouter

Correct, I'm a midfleet sailor at best (from a EU perspective where fleets are relatively large and competitive; ask JC)

That is why my own 7 year old homebuild F16 of 120+kg suits me just fine.

A faster boat will only make me a few places (in a 20 to 80 boat fleet) faster which is still well out of the top three slots.

I need to get better at sailing before I can think about buying a more competitive boat. But I'm already 37 years old and I'm not expecting to ever beat guys who are 10 to 20 years younger and started racing cats at around 12. That is just the way it is.

Wouter