Within the barriers being set up for this class of boats, what , in your opinion, would be done to optimise a set of Taipan 4.9 hulls (eg. beam, mast height, etc.) to get the best possible performance out of the platform? Will greater beam improve boat speed? Will a higher aspect main sail be better? Would the jib being sheeted to the front beam and tacked off the spinnaker pole like the Tornado setup be an improvement? Would having the hulls cambered help? Do not be shy. Everyones opinion is valid. A reply from Jim Boyer would be wonderful.<br><br>

Conrad-
<br>I'm certainly not Jim or Greg, but perhaps I can start some dialog here. I certainly do NOT mean to imply there is anything "wrong" with the current Taipan 4.9 by making any of these suggestions AND I would remind anyone that most (all?) of these changes would create a boat that you could not race one-design as a Taipan 4.9 or refer to as a "Taipan" (without AHPC's blessing).
<br>Let me address your points-
<br>1)beam- Obviously increasing beam would increase righting moment which would be beneficial in higher winds upwind and reaching; downwind isn't so clear to me since the ability to "fly" a hull downwind pays off big and increasing beam here may actually "hurt" some. Other disadvantages- increased rig stresses, increased weight, increased "loading" of the bows in gusts.
<br>2) mast height- Again, pros and cons- Pros- could use higher aspect sail plan, higher gennaker luff. Cons- more weight, would have to reduce mainsail area, more "hobby-horsing". (See Mark's comments re the BIM 16 vs T 4.9)
<br>3) etc.- Obviously could get boat right at minimum allowed weight (easy) and only pluses (unless weaken by so doing); could use higher/different aspect ratio boards/rudders- (pros and cons again!), "looser mesh" tramp (less weight and windage), adjustable diamond tension (pros and cons again), carbon fiber beam (s)- (less weight, stiffer, but much more expensive and easier to damage catastrophically), curved traveller (ala the "A") - better/easier mainsail adjustment but increased cost/complexity/reduced tramp space, front jib "foil"- stiffen boat, drop jib tack but weight and windage, self tacking jib- easier on crew esp. off-wind but would be smaller, carbon mast- lighter, potentially more "adjustable" but more expensive and sail development necessary to match, relocation of daggerboards- could improve downwind speed w/ gennaker theoretically but you would have to adjust size of boards and rudders as well as sails to keep everything balanced so would end up very expensive (IMO).
<br>4)Will greater beam improve boat speed?- See above- only in certain conditions, in others may hinder (Right now in fairly light air I can fly a hull on my Taipan when no other boats - exept "A" cats- can and that's abig advantage!).
<br>5) Will a higher aspect main sail be better? Rule covers this in that the "rated" area includes this so the actual sail area would drop (again see Mark's comments BIM 16 vs Taipan).
<br>6)Would the jib being sheeted to the front beam and tacked off the spinnaker pole like the Tornado setup be an improvement? - It would improve tramp "room" and clutter and tacking/gybing speed (if self-tacking) but area would have to drop and lack of overlap could be less efficient in certain conditions, although presence of gennaker would negate some IMO.
<br>7)Would having the hulls cambered help? - From experience on the "A"'s and 5.7's it really only "helps" much in conditions where you can fly a hull and the main improvement may be related more to steerage improvement when "Wild" than anything else.
<br>
<br>Okay, lets have the next brave soul give some input!
<br>
<br>Kirt
<br>Taipan 4.9 #159 "My Tai"<br><br>Kirt Simmons
<br>Taipan #159, "A" cat US 48

I will comment on possible F16HP's, that means that none of the comments here are comments on the T4.9. Once again everything is in the balance and a well balance boat (like the T4.9) will perform better than a unbalanced boat with all the new gadgets.
<br>
<br>I agree with Kirt. And here are my additions :
<br>
<br>-1- maximum Beam, I expect this to be an advantage when you sail with a very light crew. This crew doesn;t have any problems flying hull in light air and will definately receive a mild ! boost in performance in the heavy air. Something in the order of 2 % increase in UPWIND speed when going from 2,35 to 2,5 mtr. Other courses won't get this benefit so a allout inprovement of say 1% around a closed race course is realistic. It is however enough to be 1st instead of 5 th.
<br>
<br>The Unbalanced approach ? Going wide with a heavy crew, You get burned twice. During wildthinging and because you can only double trap at extreme windspeeds. A no go !
<br>
<br>-2- Mast height. It strongly corrilated to overall boat width. These two can't be uncoupled. Same story as with boat width. Only reall advantages I can see are that a higher mast will have more sailarea high above the ground where there is hardly any airflow (wind) in light conditions. Wind strongly increases with height than. So a squaretop with a reasonable high mast will do better in lighter conditions. The square top will help in controlling the baot in the heavy air but mast heigh won't. As Kirt said another trade off. You could however raise the boom somewhat by having a the same sail on a slighly higher mast. No sailarea hit and more sailare up high in light winds and more tramp room for fast boat handling like tacks. Sadly this does require more righting moment in heavier airs so this setup will probably be used by the heavier crews in the F16HP (or USA crews where light winds are predominant apparently). The light crews will have to find another optimum. Ofcourse this is allowed under formula rule and also one of the formula greatest benefits. These thing will help to level the playing field over a bigger range of crew weights.
<br>
<br>Again : it is in the balance.
<br>
<br>-3- I agree with kirt here completely although I wish to make a comment on the selftacking jib/ sheeted of the forebeam. The tornado setup lengthens the jibluff by going done all the way to the genaker boom which is fitted really low. This way they have been able to reposition the area that was in overlap to the foot. This could be enough to keep the total sailarea constant and if not than maybe moving the bridle wires foreward by an 0,1 mtr. (4 inches) will add about 0,25 sq.mtr. (2,7 sq. ft). You will miss overlap that is true but I also found that all formula boats point higher and are faster upwind than all the older non-genaker overlapped sloop designs. Than again without the genakers they loose on downwind legs and reaches.
<br>
<br>Loose mesh trampoline will be a benefit but this can be done on all cats designs except very restrictive one-designs like Hobie 16.
<br>
<br>Other benefits : Mostly rearranging rigging to work around the genaker bag, hoist the mast to top of mast instead of 2/3 inches below the top.
<br>
<br>Not really performance boosters just things to improve feel of sailing. Maybe a little bit of manouvrebility.
<br>
<br>-4- already dealed with
<br>
<br>-5- See point -2-. Higher masts will need to lighter per meter length and even lighter in absolute sense in order not to promote hobie horsing. There is an engineering challenge for you.
<br>
<br>-6- see point -3-
<br>
<br>-7- I recall Jim Boyer say that it improved steering but not really speed.
<br>
<br>And the best improves I keep secret ! Just joking ofcourse.
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br>
<br>Prindle 16 (yellow canari, just a nickname)
<br>Prindle 18 genaker (no name)
<br>Constructing Taipan 4,9 based F16HP sailnr. 243
<br>
<br><br><br>

Wouter-
<br>Have you started building your boat? Are you taking photos of the process to post for those interested?
<br>Inquiring minds want to see!
<br>On the mast height issue neither of us brought up the fact in the unrestricted "A" class they tried taller (than 8m) masts but w/ sailarea, length and beam limited, 8m seemed to be the limit at which "taller was better", so it's somewhat natural to assume that a height of this same dimension, or perhaps even less, would be optimal for the F16HP (IMO).
<br>
<br>Kirt<br><br>Kirt Simmons
<br>Taipan #159, "A" cat US 48

Photo's,
<br>
<br>Ofcourse I can't do better than Phill has already done on his homepage at :
<br>
<br>http://www.geocities.com/phillbrander/index.html
<br>
<br>And I refer anyone to his homepage for my photo's will not look any different. Will save you all alot of time by waiting for my photo's to be developped. I do think however that I will make a proper photo series of the shaping of the boards 'n rudders, I could not find any pictures like that on Phill page. With respect to the Taipan that is (he does have the carbon Tiger boards series)
<br>
<br>I guess you are referring to the A-cat masts of 9 mtr. height instead of 8 mtr. And yes, Pieter Jan Dwarshuis told me much the same. Yes, a similar mast height could be the general optimum for the F16 HP's. The F16HP is however wider, has more righting moment with 2 on trapeze and has more sailarea than an A-cat. But still these difference are not big and will most probably favour the same height of rig.
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

http://www.geocities.com/f16hpclass/F16HP_to_F18_comparison.html
<br>
<br>wouter
<br><br><br>