Mark,

I think you're over inflating the role Olympic sailing plays and if you feel I'm a bad sport for saying so , so be it. This bad sport will still be ahead of you on our race course, the one that matters.

Lets look at all the boats.

1) Tornado... does not fit the specs... NOT even close!
2) Hobie Tiger ... does not fit the specs. Too big a sail plan for a mixed crew weight of 300 lbs.

IMO, These should be not be invited to sail the trials.

The rest are all valid contenders.

1) H16
+++ cost
+++ available

This is the best cost and available boat on the international market. Hands down!

How many making any comment sail a H16 or have one with a spin. I suspect 0.

-- Reading the specs. The H16 is not an easy boat to tack by no means.

-- No self tacking jib. Without this and the added spin I don't see the H16 as a serious contender and not for the other comments mentioned.

2) SF16

-- Not a lot of data here.
-- No international presence other than the F16 class.
- cost

3) N16

-- No track record.
- cost

4) V16

++ Proven design.
++ Proven track record.

- cost
-- I hate to see a F16 be given to a single mfg.

5) N17

+ latest design concept

-- No track record
-- no specs on the rig.
While this looks great on paper there are no specs on how or why anyone would vote for this without knowing anythings from what has been posted so far. There needs to be more information.


The F16 has 3 entries and these are true mix multihull size boats. I would like to see it as an open design ( F16 ) and let each if desire make their boats and let this class develop much like the F18.

How does the tiger not fit the specs?

Keep in mind that ISAF didn't present specifications; just guidelines.

Sorry to let you all know that the decision have already been made: http://www.rio2016.com/en/the-games/sports/olympic/sailing


Lift of the spi.. Not a very large component of the forces generated by the spi I think. Relative relocation of center of effort from sailplan resulting in improved utilization of bouyancy is more likely the answer in my opinion.

But when it comes to selection of the H16, which is probably the likely outcome once the political game is ended, I think that would not be a step forward in development of multihull sailing.

Best choice at this time would be the N17. Little risk to other classes and a platform suitable for mixed sailing. Photogenic, high performance probably and one design..

I do hate the fact that campaign cost probably will explode with any selection except for the T.

John your statement is not correct. ISAF put out an RFP where #4 are specifications for a two person mixed gender multihull. There is no mention in the document that says "guidelines" at all.

I think everyone should read the document.
http://www.sailing.org/36974.php

The list so far are the boats submitted for consideration. Some may be eliminated or not invited to the trials.

Can anyone explain the difference in the voting for the 3 f16s on the list?
Doesn't seem like objective voting

Tom, take a look at 3(a). While you're correct that the word "specification" is in there, and I beg your pardon for my error, a boat doesn't have to meet the specifications to be submitted. Further, as has been demonstrated in past equipment evaluations, the boat that meets the most specs isn't guaranteed selection.

In my line of work, RFPs and specifications have a strict meaning; ISAF seems to use them more loosely.

It's true that the RFP presented specifications and didn't use the word 'guidelines', but it's also true that it defines an evaluation process in which proposals are scored against those criteria on a 4-point scale, rather than just being ruled in or out based simply on strict compliance.

Which 3 F16s are you looking at?? I see two - the Nacra F16 and the Viper. None of the others fit within the F16 box rule.

That said, I don't think the voting is very surprising. The Nacra F16 is almost certainly a fine boat, but just a completely unknown quantity to practically everyone here. The Viper OTOH is very well known, so if a particular F16 design were going to be chosen, it's natural that people here would favor something with a well-documented track record. Who knows, perhaps the trials will turn up something we don't know.

If the third boat you were referring to is the Spitfire, well it just doesn't have much of an international presence.

When I see the Hobie 16 + spi proposed as the next youth or olympic boat I always think back a few years when the youth squads participated in NAM-REM race weekend at my club.

There was big wind and even sunshine and a fleet of some 80 cats racing. Still the several of the H16's with spi remained on the beach. I asked a few youth sailors why they wouldn't sail them. Not a thorough poll but indicative none the less. They replied that hitched rides on real boats like the F18's. They would rather talk their way on orher makes then sail the hobies they were supplied with. One of them also said that a spi on the standard H16 simply doesn't work as it does on the new designs. In short they were not really interested in that combo and that in my eyes is the biggest drawback of the h16 +spi proposal. That and the fact the world wide H16 class really doesn't want a spi anywhere near them. What kind of message does that send into the world of sailing ?

In the end these youths can always choose between the 49-er and ... ... Whatever cat is chosen. Better choose one that they find attractive or we're out for good !

Wouter

Personally I chose the Viper in this poll

Not H16 for reasons stated earlier by myself and some others

Not Tiger as I really do feel that that is not as well suited to mixed crews as some others, neither is it a true modern design with the non-wing alu mast and the old style hullshape. Its international SMOD class is in my opinion almost non-existant, due to many changes made by hobie itself or by the owners under the F18 pressure, and hence not an argument in its favour. It is NOT a spi equivalent of the H16 in this respect.

Not Spitfire. Good design but also too limited in its presence world wide when compared to others. It simply offers no advantages over the other options.

Not nacra F16 pr Nacra 17 , good approach with the 17 but both designs are too much unknowns and I don't like taking risks with what may be our last shot at the big O. Also new boats need to go through a few years of development and refinement before they are finished, something ISAF is very scared off.

Viper (smod) yes ! Why, it has proven to be an excellent boat for 2-up crews in the given weight range with a modest international presence with a builder that can supply boats and has already done so several times the world over (think Alter Cup) . It is in fact more a 2-up design than a 1-up design contrary to its F16 origins. It will be even more so with the right sailcut. Also I' m convinced that it will be fitted with a carbon mast for the Olympics , going on what I've been told by some in the know. This makes it alot more attractive to olympic hopefuls I'm told and not something the H16, Tiger or Spitfire are considering at this time. I'm told several Vipers with carbon masts are already sailing in France almost since the launch of the class there a few years ago.

They only thing the Viper may be accused of lacking at this time is curved foils or a wingsail a la AC45. However i thinks latter is impractical for regular regatta sailing and the first is only a small issue in the grant scheme of things especially when the racing is SMOD anyway.

I feel AHPC, Darren and Carlijn are campaigning hard for the Viper and hence I also think this design stands a good chance of being selected politically.

Wouter

They only thing the Viper may be accused of lacking at this time is curved foils or a wingsail a la AC45. However i thinks latter is impractical for regular regatta sailing and the first is only a small issue in the grant scheme of things especially when the racing is SMOD anyway.
[/quote]

I also heard there was a possible carbon mast in the works and the big one that i havent seen mentioned is that I heard some sort of lifting foils were fitted/proposed for the trials.

Anyone else heard this??

Hmmm......

[size:8pt][/size]Carbon mast,

Simply put, the olympic campaigners I spoke (both in and out of the AHPC network) felt that the switch to carbon was one of the best things happening to the tornado design. It made the boat better and the racing more equal. Mark Schneider has been all over this in the past (although he is increasingly going mental on other issues lately)

This makes for an interesting connundrum. On one hand some want carbon out of the class for marketing purposes and on the other hand they want it in for improved designs and racing. This discussion was also raging at the start of the F16 class and I think they 've done the right thing. Allow both and let the buyer decide which option suits him best. I personally chose alu as I'm not nearly good enough to get the max out of that, let alone a carbon mast. If I ever do then and only then will I see sufficient justification to pull out my wallet. This approach has proven to be surprisingly easy to explain to interested persons.

However, I'm convinced that the carbon mast option is very serious for the big O. and rightly so.


Lifting foils,

I have no info on that, nor do I see this option as likely on what I do know. However I've been a little bit out of the loop lately. The F16 rules already allow inward canted boards that do provide a limited amount of lift. This was the result of the discussions I had with Martin Fisher way back in the beginning of the F16 class. A compromise was included in the f16 rule set after learning of the experiences gained by Hans Klok, the current chairman on the class. He had a modified boat with inward canted boards with a significant angle. Summarizing, benefits of the curved and inward canted boards were two fold. -1- less wetted surface area by lifting. -2- less pitching due to the additional damping supplied by the foils. I put the question to martin and settled on 6 degrees as max angle as that would allow for significant damping but not allow for full lifting of the boat (break clear of surface when mishandled).

I envisioned full lifting to be bad for the class , especially in the early stages. Full lifting easily encloses large induced drag components making the boat slow in addition to difficult to handle well (crashes). So it was decided to go halfway and thus allow for some of the benefits without incurring the risks.

In hintsight, maybe 10 degrees of max canting would have been better but althogether I'm very happy with the path taken although not all builders have made max use of this potential yet. One must also remember that lifting foils was still a largelt unknown thing back then. Lots of believes and claims but not much hard data on which to base such a important decision as fixing the class rules of a fledgling class.

With 6 degrees of max canting you get 16 kg of additional lift in addition to damping of pitching, compare this to a total of 240 kg that the leeward hull needs to support. With 10 degrees max canting you get 26 kg and about 1.5 times more stiff damping. The latter also more restant to the hulls from following the contours of larger waves (not chop) that one has to follow or risk the mainbeam hittinh the tops. As said earlier I looked for a good optimum, in discussions with martin and others, while allowing some of the proven benefits.

It was the right choice (compromise) for a new class and one that would also see lots of recreational sailors. Any Olympic selection was way beyond dreams back then. For a purpose build olympic cat I would make a different decision on what I now know. But maybe not for any true F16 type design. Basically I see a 130 kg platform with lifting foils as somewhat of a strange thing when compared to a 107 kg platform with slighly inward canted boards. Afterall, the first 23 kg of lifting will be taken up by the weight difference requiring the 130 kg design to be lifted by 40 kg's before it will pass a 107 kg platform with only a modest 16 kg a net lifting. Requiring the first to have canting somewhere around 18 degrees which is significant. And still the lighter boat will accellerate faster and both may also plane easily thus negating some of the foil lifting benefits.

Lifting foils on a 180 or up large cat with a big 2 male crew (350 kg combined with lots of sailpower) Yeah, I believe in that, but not nearly as much on light low drag design with medium crewweigh (240 kg combo) and much smaller sail loads because of limited righting moment like that on F16's. Note that sail loads are directly related to the amount of lifting that may be created by canted foils. T-foils are different in this respect and curved foils are sort of a mix between these two.

Anyway I doubt whether a special foil package is in the works for any boat except the nacra 17 as that would conflict directly with the established class rules, the grown fleets and ISAF recognized status that the other proposed boats have.

Anyway, I will stop my rant now.

Wouter

definitely heard it wasnt canted boards so i can only assume curved boards.

On another note, while yes curved foils are banned from the f16 class (if i read your post correctly) whats stopping the viper from allowing lifting foils in their one design class rules?

Nothing.

Indeed nothing.

As far as their own class is concerned they can do whatever they want, although they claim to be a ISAF recognized class and isn't there some regulation on how such class rules may be changed and in what timeframe ?

Over on http://catsailingnews.blogspot.com/ mr Bundock posted the following reply on the forum.

I've edited out the bits not related to the mast specifically. Some parts of this forum thread are a bit disrespectful and I feel 2Bsailing and AHPC deserve lots of credit for what they do in relation to getting the cats back in and maintaining a multihull presence within ISAF.


Darren Bundock said...
Dear Mr/Mrs Conspiracy Theory,

It was actually me that ordered the first 2 piece mast and I did that about 3 weeks after the 2011 ISAF Mid Year meeting in St.Petersburg. Which I attended as an observer.

There was discussion that a 2 piece mast might be a requirement. To cover all bases I ordered it on the chance it might happen. If you were there then you too would have known.

...

Regards
Darren



Darren made this response in relation to previous posting by some anonymous poster stating the following :


... the big question is when did Carolijn order a 2 piece carbon mast from Heol composites? ...



It seems to me that the two-piece carbons masts are a serious rumour if not indeed true. Can Jeff confirm whether the same mast is also on the Nacra F16's ?

Regards,

Wouter

Just bliss , having a weekend for myself !

So excuse me if I go a little overboard.

Looked up Heol Spars and found this on their webpage.

http://www.heol-composites.com/index.php?page=realisation&ref=Carbon spars&id=2

Wing 150 is very close to being a (carbon) copy of the AHPC Alu superwing mast that is used on 95% of all alu-masted F16's. The superwing has 1.6 mm wallthickness and so their 2 mm comes closest. I would personally be a bit hesitant with the 1 mm carbon walls on a F16 but composite masts are not my speciality.

1.2 kg for the 2 mm thick Wing 150 makes for a roughtly 10.2 kg F16 mastsection of 8.5 meter length. At least 5 kg lighter than a lightest superwing that I have on my books..

Wouter