Announcements
New Discussions
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Re: News for the F16 class [Re: Timbo] #205478
03/12/10 07:16 PM
03/12/10 07:16 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,021
Australia
macca Offline
old hand
macca  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,021
Australia
Then your class would be taken more seriously..



________________________
http://aus300.blogspot.com
--Advertisement--
Re: News for the F16 class [Re: macca] #205479
03/12/10 07:20 PM
03/12/10 07:20 PM
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 954
Mumbles Y.C Wales U.K
Mark P Offline
old hand
Mark P  Offline
old hand

Joined: May 2006
Posts: 954
Mumbles Y.C Wales U.K
2be or not 2be
I think this Class is starting "to be" taken seriously.


MP*MULTIHULLS
Re: News for the F16 class [Re: Mark P] #205480
03/12/10 07:24 PM
03/12/10 07:24 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,049
Sebring, Florida.
Timbo Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Timbo  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,049
Sebring, Florida.
More seriously by whom? You? Hahahaaa

Yeah, we really care what you think!

Haaahahaha, good one Macca! You crack me up!


Blade F16
#777
Re: News for the F16 class [Re: Timbo] #205481
03/12/10 08:18 PM
03/12/10 08:18 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,118
Northfield Mn
Karl_Brogger Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Karl_Brogger  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,118
Northfield Mn
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.

Re: News for the F16 class [Re: Mark P] #205483
03/12/10 08:46 PM
03/12/10 08:46 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,021
Australia
macca Offline
old hand
macca  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,021
Australia
Originally Posted by Mark P
2be or not 2be
I think this Class is starting "to be" taken seriously.


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!



________________________
http://aus300.blogspot.com
Re: News for the F16 class [Re: macca] #205484
03/12/10 08:49 PM
03/12/10 08:49 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,118
Northfield Mn
Karl_Brogger Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Karl_Brogger  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,118
Northfield Mn
Originally Posted by macca
Originally Posted by Mark P
2be or not 2be
I think this Class is starting "to be" taken seriously.


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!!!!

Re: News for the F16 class [Re: Karl_Brogger] #205508
03/13/10 05:17 AM
03/13/10 05:17 AM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 893
W
waynemarlow Offline
old hand
waynemarlow  Offline
old hand
W

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 893
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.

Re: News for the F16 class [Re: waynemarlow] #205650
03/15/10 05:32 AM
03/15/10 05:32 AM
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 65
Vic, Australia
HJS Offline
journeyman
HJS  Offline
journeyman

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 65
Vic, Australia
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!

Re: News for the F16 class [Re: scooby_simon] #205966
03/17/10 07:21 PM
03/17/10 07:21 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
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

Last edited by Wouter; 03/17/10 07:22 PM.

Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: News for the F16 class [Re: Wouter] #205967
03/17/10 07:51 PM
03/17/10 07:51 PM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,528
Looking for a Job, I got credi...
scooby_simon Offline
Hull Flying, Snow Sliding....
scooby_simon  Offline
Hull Flying, Snow Sliding....
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,528
Looking for a Job, I got credi...
Originally Posted by Wouter
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)


F16 - GBR 553 - SOLD

I also talk sport here
Re: News for the F16 class [Re: HJS] #205968
03/17/10 07:52 PM
03/17/10 07:52 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Quote

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!



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


Last edited by Wouter; 03/17/10 08:06 PM.

Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: News for the F16 class [Re: Wouter] #205972
03/17/10 08:20 PM
03/17/10 08:20 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe


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.



Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: News for the F16 class [Re: scooby_simon] #205974
03/17/10 08:43 PM
03/17/10 08:43 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe

Quote

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.



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


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: News for the F16 class [Re: Wouter] #205981
03/17/10 10:07 PM
03/17/10 10:07 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 951
Brisbane, Queensland, Australi...
ncik Offline
old hand
ncik  Offline
old hand

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 951
Brisbane, Queensland, Australi...
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.

Re: News for the F16 class [Re: ncik] #205985
03/17/10 11:25 PM
03/17/10 11:25 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
Stewart Offline
old hand
Stewart  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
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.

Re: News for the F16 class [Re: Wouter] #205986
03/17/10 11:29 PM
03/17/10 11:29 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
Stewart Offline
old hand
Stewart  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
how many ratings do you want the F16 to have in the same fleet on the same course?

Re: News for the F16 class [Re: Stewart] #205991
03/18/10 03:44 AM
03/18/10 03:44 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe

Stewart,

Quote

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



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 Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: News for the F16 class [Re: Wouter] #206226
03/20/10 07:37 PM
03/20/10 07:37 PM
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 65
Vic, Australia
HJS Offline
journeyman
HJS  Offline
journeyman

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 65
Vic, Australia
Originally Posted by Wouter
Quote

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!



WRONG !

The flexing of the beams is determined by the size of the crossse...... etc etc (Not going to include the whole quote here)

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.

Re: News for the F16 class [Re: HJS] #206239
03/20/10 09:57 PM
03/20/10 09:57 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
Stewart Offline
old hand
Stewart  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
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..


Re: News for the F16 class [Re: HJS] #206258
03/21/10 05:33 AM
03/21/10 05:33 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
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.



Quote

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


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

Last edited by Wouter; 03/21/10 05:52 AM.

Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Damon Linkous, phill, Rolf_Nilsen 

Search

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 378 guests, and 87 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Darryl, zorro, CraigJ, PaulEddo2, AUS180
8150 Registered Users
Top Posters(30 Days)
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics22,404
Posts267,055
Members8,150
Most Online2,167
Dec 19th, 2022
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1