How would a set of carbon fibre wings go on a F16 would it have the volume in the bows to support the extra leverage or would it pitchpole? I currently have a I17 and it is supposed to have heaps of volume in the bows so I have got Nacra to make a set of wings for it, will the weight of the wings slow it down or will the extra leverage be offset this, I sail 1 up just as the F16 can be, has any one tried wings on a F16? I would love to hear from them, I guess the 2 boats are fairly simular regarding adding wings r/e performance, this is something I am doing regardless as i am entering a charity fundraiser which requires a 6 day coast sail and the wings as a seat will be awsome i can remove them later if they are just a hinderence thanks...

That depends on which F16 you are going to use, as they have different hull shapes and different bow shape, ie. some have more volume up front than others.

Are you using the F17? The F17 is of course 1 foot longer so that adds more buoyancy up front too, that will help, you might want to talk to the Hobie 18 guys as that's the boat I've seen most with the wings, that and the Hobie 17's. I've never seen any on a F16.

I had wings on my FXone. Not that great, the little bit of leverage wasn't worth the extra weight.

Wings would be part of the overall beam measurement - which is limited to 2.5m (one side could fold up while the other deploys). Not sure it would be worth it on a F16 - it seems as though the rules are biased against wings, as they are not part of the overall weight calculation either (if not permanently fixed).

a folding wing setup in carbon would give a considerable advantage over boats without wings.

total weight of each wing (with effective beam increase of 1.5m) would only be 2.5kg including mountings..

so you would get a massive righting moment gain for very little weight cost. Its another F16 rule that I struggle to see the benefit to the class.

Andrew, F16 is a semi-development class. Wings can be retro-fitted (at a cost and adjustment to beam width) and should a carbon, folding wing setup be trialled and found to be leap forward in performance, it would then be up to each owner to decide whether they should go that route........
I (and other F16 owners) fail to see the struggle in that?

it is actually a very good rule, the measure overall width. It is done in many other classes as well. It is a up to the designer to decide to make the cross beams wider or to add wings.
I don't like the wings, because you could fall onto it during a capsize, but that's just my personal opinion.

By the way with a F16, you have alread a width to length ratio of 1:2, as a Tornado.

Cheers,

Klaus

Macca your brain isnt working..
1.2.2 The maximum overall beam measured on the platform is 2.5 m (= 8.2 ft).

1.2.3 Wings may be carried as long as the equivalent overall beam, when measured over the platform, and one fully extended wing is 2.5 m or less.

So no increase in overall width can happen..

Andrew, As john says; the boat must still be 8 foot 2 wide so with wings you will get LESS RM.

Why?

Well; with wings where is the mast in terms of distance from the pivot point(leeward hull) ?

without wings; the mast is 1/2 boat width from the pivor point.
With wings the mast is less than 1/2 of the effective boat width as the wing IS part of beam.

So the mass of the mast is closer to the pivot point and contributes less to the RM.

Adding wings on a fixed beam platform REDUCES RM.

Ruls are ruls, but the tornadoes changed their ruls and it was a huge advantage to the class, i cant see how a set of wings would do any harm to the class, i dont think the hobie fx wings were all that advanced compared to what we can make nowdays, so i guess weight wouldnt be an issue, they would have to be easily removed to trailer or fold up, that also would not be hard to make, the leeward would kik up so no drag when the windward hull comes up, i can only see pluses, oh well im gunna try them, but trapping out on them with spinaker up is gunna take some gonads..Great response thanks guys, pics will come but have to wait for Nacra!

I believe Andrew understands that the class ruls have a width limit and the wings will exceed that, perhaps you could strap some carbon stilts to your feet! Keeping within the ruls that is...you could have stilt holders in the side of your hull with quick release breakaway straps if you go for a swim..Andrew is saying by not allowing wings is not benefiting the class, or any of the other cat classes, yet our friends sailing monohulls are embrasing the use of light carbon wings to enhance their speed..just my thoughts...

Devon, the class rules DO allow wings - they must still fit within the boxrule though. So you arrange the wings so that one is always 'kicked up' and you get a slightly better righting moment than a full width F16 without wings. However you're penalised in that they are not part of the platform weight so your boat will always be over and you have the added complexity of the arrangement and the chance of something going wrong.
It may well be that a winged F16 could be faster but that is the beauty of the class - someone has to try it first before others will follow!

Im guessing english is not your first language..

1.2.3 Wings may be carried as long as the equivalent overall beam, when measured over the platform, and one fully extended wing is 2.5 m or less.

I can post a translation in any language which is your first language.. Wings are allowed. Cheating is not..

Adding extra righting moment would be a trade off, the boards we use are getting smaller and smaller ( less drag ) so adding righting moment will eventually simply over power the lift generated from the boards, increase the board size and you increase the drag causing the boat to go slower.

With my weight out on the trapeze and the spinny pulled in tight on a broad reach you can really feel the boat going sideways, enough that we now take the spinny down as its faster to the next mark without it. With wings that can only be exaggerated further.

From a practical perspective the only guy who fitted wings at my club to a FX1 took them off after only a day or two as he felt the boat was slower around the course plus the leeward wing kept hitting the tops of the waves slowing dramatically the boat. What he did say is they make a great armchair and you just don't need the trapeze.

My understanding of the "wings" rule is that it allows sailors who for example sail a narrow platform boat (think Mosquito, beam 2.2m) to add wings to the max of 300mm each side, giving equal RM to a fully-optimised boat. From what I understand they don`t have to be folding, if they`re fixed, the platform is still only measured with one rack.
The only advantage I can think of with this setup is that such a boat will fly a hull in less wind than a wider platform, while still having the max. RM of a full F16 design. So light wind performance might be slightly better (you can fly a hull earlier), but with the weight of the racks, do you really gain anything ? Seems self-correcting, which I`ve found most of the well-considered rules to be.

My bad... the wing rule serves no purpose, not sure why its even in there really.

However, I do like the "F16 is a semi-development class" part. If the class is open to development why are curved boards banned? it seems that there is a risk of falling behind the development curve...

was there a reason as to the banning of curved boards? almost anything else goes so why not the bent boards?

The class rules have been carefully structured to permit limited development and experimentation.
Lifting foils, curved boards, solid sails etc are quantum changes that may well be permitted in time (if members vote for them) but for the moment there are plenty of areas to explore that are within the rules.

Well it seems that the development is very limited in this case... so much for the open mindedness

That may be your funniest post ever.

So, Macca, in some posts you argue that the F16 rules are too open; in others you argue that they are not open enough?

Which is it?