All,

Thank you for all the comments and inputs both pro and con! It is apparent y'all want to play and you shall. Below is tha latest attempt at a great sailing opportunity for us! Give us your inputs/comments one more time and then we will hopefully go final so the home builders can get busy. Can we try to voice all opinions lets say by Wed night, Feb 11 at 11pm? That will give us a day or to to read all comments and open this class! Again, thank you for adding your comments for the class!!
========================================================
FORMULA 14 ASSOCIATION RULES

Mission Statement: “Promote fun sailing for all ages!!”

Safety: Wearing a life jacket/PFD is recommended. Any type of righting device, anti-turtleling device is legal. It is the responsibility of the skipper to conform to all national safety rules.

Rules

1. Maximums:
Boat Length: 14’ 3”.
Beam: 8’ 6”.
Mast Length: Open.
Sail Area (main/ jib/ reacher/ spinnaker): Open

2. Boat Components: Hulls, sails, mast, beams, rudder system, sails, rigging,
sheeting systems, trampolines, battens, booms, boomless sails, downhaul,
outhaul, mast rotation systems, tiller extensions are open and can be made of any material. Components, including sails, can be hand built or purchased from any manufacturer.

3. Sails: Pinhead, elliptical, or squaretop mainsails. Headsails/jibs may be
rollerfurled. Headsails/jibs may be mounted on short/long bridles, foils, or
on pole systems.

4. Single trapeze or hiking rack system is legal.

5. Singlehanding is the method of sailing in the class.


The intent of these rules is to be a work in progress. As the class grows, additional refinements of these rules may become necessary.

Annual review date: February 12, 2005.
==========================================================

Respectfully,

Bob Curry

I would actually like to see a mast length restriction around 24'. This is in the interest of keeping the boat easily right-able by light crews (less leverage exerted by shorter/lighter masts) and providing some form of maximum sail area limitation.

I would also like to eventually see a maximum limit on sail area in the interest of keeping the competition within range of lighter crews, and not scaring off beginner sailors from this class. However, as the class is still forming I agree that it should be left open until we can determine exactly how much sail area a 14x8.5' boat can stand I think once a maximum is determined that sail-cut derived from sailor-weight will be able to keep the playing field level from light sailors (with flatter sails) to heavy sailors (with fuller sails).

I'd feel better after getting more opinions on these and other factors from everyone interested in this class.

Excellent Bob, thanks for tackling this , its a sometimes thankless job ,writing rules ,-but think as potential F 14 CLASS sailors read this they will be happy and smiling.

The ability to inexpensively put a boat together to suit their desired requirements makes this a very attractive class for many.. It leaves open the ability of the individual to be creative and add interesting ideas and innovation on the inexpensive fun 14s by resurecting numerous existing platforms purchased very inexpensively ,--or building some fold up hulls at home ,as well as simply purchasing a great new 14 .

The boat length and size will limit practical sail area and mast height.
Seperate spin -non spin -or boat weight categories may be defined as sub class caregories included within in future years as numbers increase ,--the idea is to have fun and to include all in this 14 size.

Be sure to add back in the 2 crew aspect for smaller youth sailors ---2 75 Lb -12 year olds for example . thanks

excellent!

The 2 kid aspect is pretty important if this is a potential kid trainer.
Too bad people aren't into boardless any more. there should be a boardless formula class. Racing a boardless against a boarded boat isn't that great an idea.
cheers

2 crew noted!

Bob

Bob,
I like the latest set of rules far better than the original set. Mainly because I prefer lighter boats.

I would like to raise some personal comments for discussion.

I like the idea of not restricting any puerly downwind sail. Like spinnaker of hooter provided they are not used upwind. Luff length is more important than straight out area and luff length will be limited by mast height which will feed back into Boat and crew weight in average sailing conditions.

To prevent the competative sail plans from becoming so big that the class is beyond the capabilities of the younger sailor a sliding scale of boat weight and working sail area could help satisfy many of the concerns raised as an alternative to totally open.

People still have the freedom to experiment within a very broad scope looking at the best combination for their crew weight and personal preferences. At the same time it would help keep the competition reasonabley close.


Just a thought.

I like the new rules very much Bob. Who is going to be the first to put a I20 rig on a 14 :-D. It might rock in 3-4kt winds...

Looks great so far Bob…hope the options stay as wide open in the future as it is written now. If it really is all about the fun factor, the more options the better…also better for scrounging around to find bits and pieces for “Frankenstein” designing.

The design limits will shake themselves out in the long run by the virtue of effecting actual on the water performance… no limit on mast height, weight, sail area, and beam set at the max US trailerable width….( I anticipate some will find objection to 8’-6” because of it being over trailerable width outside the US.) will make for even more fun.

Keep it wide open and you could very well end up with the most “fun” (developmental or other wise) class of them all.

Hi Bob, I have been away skiing for the last week and am catching up on the forum - why is it that so much happens only when you are away?! I prefer the second attempt at the F-14 class rules over the first attempt. I am writing to suggest that the sail area have a limit. That limit should be equal to, or only a little more than the maximum of any existing 14' 3'' boat currently existing. You know that I have a Mystere 4.3 and that MAY have the highest sail area counting the spinnaker. Based on that, a limit of 150 sq. feet upwind (main only or w/ jib) and 150 sq. ft. headsail would be a limit that should allow any existing design to qualify and even allow sail area to be added if desired. I think that no limits allows too many crazy rigs (I've tried my share in the past) to be healthy for the class. For example, it would be easy and free for me to just pop my ($3500) carbon A class mast and sail on the 4.3 allowing me to be much faster than the other 4.3s and quickly killing their enthusiasm for this new class. Many others could try other rigs that would be heavier and impossible to right which would make the class unsafe and unwelcome to regatta organizers (I am one of those, too). So let's have a reasonable sail area limit (and rig length limit) like other box rules have so that all existing platforms can race as they are while still allowing for good speed. The 4.3 already beats Hobie 16s boat for boat around the buoys and is faster downwind than H-18s, so that proposed sail area allows for plenty of speed.
I plan on attending the Spring Fever regatta where we will have a M-4.3 class. It would not take much effort to make that part of a larger F-14 class.

Mike Fahle
Toledo

Do we really have to have a minimum beam? If it is for ease of trailering, could we not just have a rigging time limit, say 20 minutes max, skipper only, Simple (fixed) legal trailer to fully rigged.?

no limits.......thats what all seem to want......just bring your wallet............................

Mission Statement: “Promote fun sailing for all ages!!”

What a great concept…please don’t be persuaded to abandon this philosophy.
Your framework for F14 class rules are a refreshing breath of fresh air. Free and open…please keep the spirit of “run what you brung”.

The catamaran community has a plethora of catamaran classes for those who want to sail one design (Mystere 4.3, Hobie Wave) or more restrictive “box rule” (F-16, A-class)…Stick to your guns and keep this new class wide open…what a refreshing Mecca the F14 class could become for those who are sick of “all the rules”. If allowed, the freedom that the class could enjoy, will be chipped away until the F14 is just a smaller “clone” of the other Formula classes.

Terry, It sounds as if it started as being about “fun sailing”, and not super serious competition. The boats can be a reflection of their owners imagination, composed of home builts, pieced together “dead boat society” Frankenstein’s, as well as the newer small cats like the Wave or 4.3.

If someone comes with a 32’ mast and 250 sq/ft of mainsail they will quickly find out the error of their ways when everyone passes them by with a more reasonable sail plan. It doesn’t need to be written into a rule…The laws of physics will take care of it. It will all shake out on it’s own if you let it. Mike, you’re a-class rig might be faster than the 4.3 stock rig…but maybe it won’t…wouldn’t it be nice to have the freedom to at least try it?

Then there are always people that want to save us from ourselves,
To them… someone once said…”Don’t go away mad…just go away”.

Hi Guys,
We seem to be switching horses midstream. At first the ideas for this class were pick up an old run down production boat in the 13ft to 15ft length range and modify it to 14ft and 3 inches overall length. Then put a square top main and spinnaker/hooter on it and let's go racing for $1500.
Now the rules/ideas have changed to a more ideal, faster, all out racing boat, F16HP type. There are no 14.25ft footers in production anywhere in the US, so it becomes a "build your own boat game plan" at a minimum weight of 150 pounds.
Now the cost has increased several times at least in the US. To have a competitive boat, it is going to cost $2000 for materials and several hundred hours of inexperienced labor and many of these efforts will never be finished.
The class has gone from a low cost project with low technology platforms to a high cost project in terms of dollars and hours and a high technology platform. This is a nice dream but it is going to take some real dedication to make a boat happen. When you get through with all of this, your boat is 14/16ths of an F16HP, that is 88% of an F16. Why not go for an F16 and have a larger class and readymade organization to race with etc? Is 12% less cost really worth it? This short, lightweight boat is going to be more sensitive to variations in sailor's weight than the longer boats. Should we go back to the old rules, 240 pounds min weight? There is a big difference in commitment. There is alot going on here. You have to look at it from all angles.
Bill

First, to Bob, thank you for acting as chairman. It is usually a thankless job

Second, we probably need some limits on mast height and or sail area. It's true, if there were no limits on mast height or sail area the laws of physics would punish dumb ideas but also we would:

1) over time expand the boats to the limits of stability and crew weight (Just like the A-class and the boats would become very tippy)

2) eliminate older stock designs

3) become quite expensive

I would suggest:

Sail Area
Main or Main and Jib 150 ft2 or may use class legal sails (I expect that we will end up restricting light new boats to 100-120 ft2 of sail once things sort out)
Other sails - open
There should be a Portsmouth number for spin and non spin

Mast height - 23,24, or 25 (pick one) or may use stock mast and class legal sails.




If we leave everything open, I have a Worrel Spin I will loan out to anyone who wants to try and fly in on a 14 ft boat. I reserve all photo rights (how mush is America's Funniest Video's paying these days?)

As I wrote earlier, all current formula classes have limiting DESIGN factors, ultimately creating boats which have an EQUAL definable PN number, or ISAF rating. That`s the core of Formula classes, that everyone`s boat can be different, but they have EQUAL (or very similar) performance. Move away from this concept & you have lost the plot.
After reading all the posts involved it seems VERY clear that all interested parties want to be able to experiment, some want to build from scratch, some want to "hot-rod" an existing boat.
I`d suggest picking a PN/ISAF number to work to, and make that the ONLY rule. Any length boat, any size sails, mast, number of hulls, number of crew, as long as the boats all rate the same, it`s first man home takes the trophy.
Make it INCLUSIVE, not limited to one type of boat. This will also help contain the costs for all. Nobody has to cut bits off the end of their 15ft boat if it has the right rating.
The spirit of the class should be to race on equal footing at low cost. Pick a PN number that is a little ambitious for a 14ft boat, but not so wild that you have to modify the hell out of a boat, or overdesign the rig to be competitive. Base it on the average of the 14ft designs that you have sailing currently with added spinnaker / hooter. Good idea to base it on that H14 that is on steroids.

Cheers
Steve

Steve,

I think David Parker said it best when he said his feelings about racing under Portsmouth is like a priest saying "Let us proclaim the mystery of Faith." I like our Portsmouth system but it does have it's share of problems and bad ratings inherent with the way we have always tallied the results.

I don't want to have to worry whether or not somebody's rating isn't right or that they did their modification factors right. If the boat is less than 14'3", the mast is less than 24'6", and the sail area less than 300sq ft, bring it on! I like this - there's no debate at the end of the day who earned the win (whether or not they did it at the drawing board or on the water) and we all had fun. Some will be fast upwind, some down, some will outrun everyone and some will not.

NOW WE ARE GETTING SOMEWHERE!!!!!!!

Bob

Hi All --wow so many excellent knowledgable comments -

2 types and categories may be used within a F-14 class group to include all boats within set 14,3 length limit, all can start together and simply be awarded seperate class category trophies ,---its the little 14s the fun class
-Category One for many practical reasons as noted would be based on existing production cats like the Mystere 4,3 or Bob,s H-14 version with limits on mast and sail area to include all types and a little added to avoid brand favoritism .

The other sub F-14 category within class would be the open rule as proposed for lightweight and more experimental types to have fun with . This is the fun interesting aspect of this class as Carl B noted with the offer of 450 sq ft w spin . This would be fun ,isn,t that what the class should be all about? If someone else wants to fly two large spinakkers off each bow and sail straight downwind ,who cares ? It would be great fun ,-what would you name this double spin configuration?
-- hooters is already taken ,

EU influence > le grand titons spin

add your own here>>

Mike brought up a good pt and potential scenario of just taking an A class highly refined expencive c f 28 ft mast and sail and placing it on a 14. ,-It would be superior in anything less than 8 mph winds but just bury the bows in anything more -capsize and break several things ,-inc crew .--
So mainly in the name of safety , perhaps consider a max mast height for the open class . maybe 25 ft

At this - Bill R brings up an excellent point as always -- Use the already exsisting F-16 size range and just relying on that for the more h t types ,
--but there are good existing 14 ft ht types in existance, a number of sailors have expressed an interest in building one ,-some great boats plans and kits available , a new builder may wish to offer a ht 14 ,- so a category should be provided for them within the F-14 class .

Any cat beyond a 14,3 length has the option of modifying to a F-16 or cutting off hull length ,-think I would opt with a 15 to add a stern fairing plate to extend length to 16 and target those sail areas and F-16 Class specs, though like the thought of building a 14 for the boys to race and working on modifying them together and adding hardware and spin snuffer options

One other note --if spin area needs to be measured in area and rated ,the ISAF rating for small cats is the only one that uses a method of measurement and rating -
For class purposes the ISAF rating should be used as design measurement is required
Pn rating uses a general penalty based on any spin over a brand size like H but no means of rating actual various sizes ---Texel targets basic spin sizes in each Length category then adds a penalty if oversized -
A method of sail measurement is provided
see-
ISAF spin calc.
http://www.schrs.com/schrsdiagrams.asp?id=spinnaker

Hope the 2 category idea is helpfull -
No rule will meet the ideal needs of every individual,
but within 2 categories-- [like the A class uses and 18 sq among others } --most all can find what they are basically looking for in any 14 ftr.--Adding more sub categories of numerous weights and sail areas becomes too limiting and confusing .
Those that can not find the ideal cat in this 14,3 max length have a number of options in various length classes and different variations of philophy on the Formula class concept ,from very extensive ridgid limited development to more open concepts ,--the 14s should provide both .
The other option is to go the way of F-18s with 2 seperate distict groups and classes of 14s ,-I would rather see em all together ,just having fun .

Should the Waves soup up with Hooters and Spins and race with you guys in the F14 Fleet?
If so, Gotta get busy -- need more bow sprits, more sails, more hands, more feet.
Rick

Rick - I assumed all along that this would pull in the souped up Wave you've been sailing. You fit the box, so bring it on!

I want to get Blade or 4.3 T plans and build.

Going to use an A-class main, cut down to fit a 24' mast.
I'd like to get some pictures of the ARC boats, particularly the decks. And a LOOOONG pole w/chute.
8'6" beam to fit a trailer I've already got.

In response to Steve Kwicksilver
"Pick a PN number that is a little ambitious for a 14ft boat, but not so wild that you have to modify the hell out of a boat, or overdesign the rig to be competitive. Base it on the average of the 14ft designs that you have sailing currently with added spinnaker / hooter. Good idea to base it on that H14 that is on steroids."


It is a good idea except you can't calculate a Portsmouth # to that level of detail. A Portsmouth corrector can tell you the effect on a boats Portsmouth # of putting a spin on or widening the beam. There is no way of calculating what you have to do to a Mystere 4.3 to make it equal to Bob's H14, for example. I don't know of a way to independently calculate the Portsmouth # of a totally new boat.

The texel system claims to be able to do that. BUT, it has known problems with light boats and it doesn't rate a hooter equal to a spin. There are probably other problems that I don't know about.

IF EVERYBODY AGREES THAT:

1) all of us are sailing light boats so the problem will be EQUAL FOR ALL OF US

2) A hooter and a spin are equal on a sq foot basis (i,e, a 100 sq ft Spin is the equal of a 100 sq ft hooter)

3) Foils (dagger boards and rudders) are NOT taken into account

4) a maximum mast height and all masts are equal

5) Plus some other things I have not thought of


You could generate a CRUDE table that would give you max upwind and downwind sail area for a given length, width and beam.

For example, you would round your length and beam up to the nearest 3 in, round your boat weight up to the nearest 10 lbs, find these values in the table and read off your max upwind and downwind sail area.

You would probably find a Wave would be allowed to run a spin hanging from a helium balloon in addition to a hooter.and still be below max sail area

Any better ideas and who wants to generate the table? I will help but right now I am real busy.

This class sounds great. I have too many boats already but it will be fun to watch. Just a thought from an interested observer:

8'6" beam can be a pain on the road and in transit. A-class are 7'6" I believe. and I don't think you would miss the beam on a 14' boat.

IMHO

HuntS- Are you from Europe? Most of the sailors in this debate are in the US where we've got nice wide roads and all the 16'+ cats built in the last 15-20 years have been 8'6" wide.

As mentioned above- if we're having trouble with the boat being two wide, a chopsaw and a drill can fix it. Much more difficult to fix a boat that's too narrow.

The F-16 ht Class and web site did a very nice job of comparing different design variations within Formula classification by using Texel and ISAF rating -
They only take basics of L B W SA plus a few other factors in the design measurement rating to arrive at an average comparison of all types of cats ,--but that is very different from a detailed design annalysis in greater depth on similar designs in a similar classification .

It is ISAF that provides the basic definitions and standard methods of measurement that is the basic language used when defining these types of design measurement based formula classes .-
http://www.schrs.com/schrsdiagrams.asp?id=boat

A detailed design annalysis is not needed ,-no one would agree on its method or relative numeric value placed on numerous varied design features which would then vary in each wind and sea condition .

Think your correct that all must agree in principle that all boat types have a reasonable opportunity to modify their boat to potentially be the equal of any other .

check out the F-16 site ,-and its ISAF conparison
plus a really nice basic box rule diagram with basic specs of L B W sail area etc
http://www.geocities.com/F16HPclass/
when you have time

good luck with the F-14 building project
sounds really interesting .

best regards

Carl and others,

Over the years a new measurement based system was worked out. (Carl didn't so I did); It works in a similar way as ISAF and Texel but adresses the problem points of both these systems. Problem points like : light-heavy wind shift, sloop rig cat rigged after adding a spinnaker. Singlehanding versus doublehanding.

This system is currently code named "New Measurement Based Ratings"

The latter system may well function satisfactory in the role proposed by Carl if any of you want to go that way (which I think to be unlikely)

Never the less I wanted to make you aware of the new possibility.

This forum doesn't allow me to post the working excelsheet + tabled input and resulting ratings so any body interested just has to mail me and I will send it to you.

Wouter

Way to go Wout , it furthers efforts to understand design and helps establish F-type classes -sounds good .

Think the ISAF or Texel are just for quick comparison purposes ,--but not to base a F class on . They should just be used as a snapshot ,-much like a Pn # - and hopefully be within 2 points or so of each other in class when comparing different brand types once modified to max class specs. ,--If not then examine why , often its a clitch in the particular rating system that can only average out numerous vastly different design features --boards to non board types --hi aspect sail plans to low --very heavy to min ht types --etc .

In examining the same types of very similar theoretic designs in a class definition you could actually use existing design software than would examine and compare in great detail the numerous specifics of design and calc. theoretic speed potential in each windspeed then average those in a mid range ---but still an average that varies greatly in conditions ,--also greatly mainly with human ability and other intangables like specialized sailing techniques developed by racing sailors not considered by the programer or designer .--
example --on I 20s many teams will center the rotator on the CF mast w spin up going downwind ,--the rig flexes much more in gusts creating a pumping type action that accellerates faster . This is just one of many , also learning to tune a boat for varied conditions makes huge differences on the race course and in theoretic speed .
how can any equate that?
Any rating "system" is imperfect and an average to some extent .
That is why CLASS racing is the ideal ,-and Formula the best means of including all within a basic box class category .
Concluded that and thought it better to work within ISAF or Texel and just promote Formula type clases .-

A detailed design annalysis would include such comparisons as hull design and form drag with frictional area drag .
Calc the area of wetted surface both static and under various wind strengths and degrees of heel ,-and in seas .The prismatic coeficient ratio of various hull shapes . Volume calc , section comparison ,-stern design and form drag annalysis , then the foils -boards rudders -
hull finish. -weight distribution -moments etc -on to the mast sail plan etc etc etc . It is a very lengthy process full of condition variables compounded by an infinite number of combination design features and new innovation and design add.

It is a fun endeavor , and such a great sport , hope all enjoy the process and appreciate the people involved .

It is a little simpler than that Carl !

Wouter

An unlimited beam width for a catamaran is fine BUT, the wider the hulls are apart, (assuming the fore and aft position of the mast step position is kept the same), the more prone the cat is to pitch poling due to the increased sail dynamicly generated down ward pressures transfered to the bows. In fact, rather than achieving a more stable base by widening the distance between the hulls, the reverse is always the outcome when the ideal ratio between hull beam, hull waterline length, mast hieght, sail area, and aspect ratio of sails, is exceeded. A very rough "laymans" measurement for this is approx 14' length, 7' beam, upto 25'6" mast hieght, and an approximate sail area of 130 sq ft (depending on the aspect ratio, the lower the aspect ratio the larger the controlable -with advantage- sail area that can be carried. The use of a spinnaker falls outside these dimensions as all sorts of dynamic changes occur to the controlability of the boat with the kite, all of which are able to be comfortably incorporated on the same cat.

Who says the mast and hull positions are staying the same?