Typically I try to keep the F16 rules as they were accepted by all in november 2002 and I'm quite succesful in that. However this time a very serious proposal has been entered. The reasoning behind is sound and we are at a point in the class that the acceptance of the proposed rule change doesn't affect any exiting F16. Watch this forum as we will give more details in a week or so.

In addition to this there is a proposal to delete jib rule 1.13.1 "The leech shall not be convex"

It has been pointed out that this rule serves no purpose in the current F16 setup. Arguably it is a leftover from the F18 rules we used in 2001 to draft the first set of F16 rules. The current area measurement methode includes all area despite the fact wether the leech is convex or concave. So the rule is not needed here. Also the F18's appear to use this rule to facilitate furling of the jib, which is required for safety. The F18 rules also ban fully battened jibs. F16 rules contain neither prohibation nor is it believed that a fully battened jib is a safety issue in strong winds. Afterall a fully battened jib sheet can be completely loose and the jib will just weathervane to the wind without flapping about. F20 class has already allowed these features. So the "jib leech shall not be convex" in the F16 rule is unlinked to any other rule or any structure inside the F16 rules. It is therefor useless and only impeding improved design rather than equalizing performance or limiting costs. In addition to this we see that fully battened jibs are getting into the F16 designs and a little convex leech is desirable for these jibs. Also the Taipan 4.9's are really helped by allow convex leeches as their foretriangle is relatively small and it is difficult to get the full F16 area in.

For this reason it is proposed to drop this rule 1.13.1 "The leech shall not be convex" altogether.

Please give any comments on it that you may feel are appropriet.


Last point :

Anybody got any other suggestion regarding the F16 rules that we can deal with at the same time as these proposals ?

Regards,

Wouter

Hi Wouter,
I have some ideas regarding the F16 rules.I think you should look at restricting materials for beams and masts to aluminium. This would hopefully keep costs under control and as the minimum weight already allows boats using these materials to come in at minimum weight it shouldn't affect the performance of the class to much. What worries me is in the future somebody with a huge bank balance might get carbon parts custom made such as a mast with a very light tip and very heavy lower section allowing it to pass the weight rule for masts, as the rule measures the overall weight. This could give him a very small advantage and if he was a good enough sailor winning races, others may think the mast is the reason why and feel the only way to keep up is to spend the same sort of money.
Something else I am interested to know regarding the F16 rules if I put a larger rig and wings on my Mosquito and it all fitted within the F16 rule would I be able to race as a optimised F16. I have sold Twice Bitten and am currently looking at getting a new boat made out of the same mould as Tim's boat, I sailed Tim's at a recent reggatta and it was faster than Twice Bitten and more bouyant, possibly able to cope with full F16 weight, so think it may be worth having two rigs and take on the Taipans and others with F16 rig.

Regards Gary.

I keep hearing about this “mythical sailor” who has an unlimited bank account and is going to ruin this or that class because of the ability to buy his way into first place. Where is he/she? Never met one yet…Have you? Sounds like an endless game of “what if”. If your proposal was true then the M-20 would be winning every race it entered and no one would have a chance against it, which doesn’t seem to be the case. Sometimes too much emphasis is placed on the boat, and not enough credit is given a gifted sailor.

“If it’s not broke don’t fix it” should be the standard. Concerning the amendment Wouter is proposing…yes, anything that takes the unnecessary out of the mix is a good thing.

Bob

Gary,

Please reread the F16 rules more carefully. The situations that you describe are not possible under the current ruleset; meaning these "tricks" would create a non-compliant boat already. You are in error of several rules. Example : The mast weight limit is NOT a limit on overall mast weight but rather on the position of the centre of mass.

Can't outlaw carbon mast as 30 boats are already sailing with them. Also we took a really careful look at carbon masts at the start of the class and decided (by vote) that carbon mast should be allowed. We incorporated the mast tip weight rule (Notice TIP weigth) to make sure that the carbon mast wouldn't upset the class. I think the balance is still working very well.


>>This would hopefully keep costs under control

At the moment the drive within the class is to more in-expensive boats. Stealth has made the transition already by pricing their boats very attractively. Blade is following suit and Taipan has been caught out although they are currently looking at making production more cost effective.

In short; at this time their is no need to safeguard against rising prices as the trend between builders is securely directed downwards at this time. There is however one proposal regarding an extra rule about the design of beams. More about this one later.


>>Something else I am interested to know regarding the F16 rules if I put a larger rig and wings on my Mosquito and it all fitted within the F16 rule would I be able to race as a optimised F16.


Any compliant F16 (even the current mossie) can race against fully optimized F16's ; their is no rule or intend the ban them. The disadvantage of a non fully optimized boat is solely to the crew sailing this craft, why would the class limit the entry of such a crew ? There is no point for the class to do that, we much rather have such crews out sailing with us.


>>I have sold Twice Bitten and am currently looking at getting a new boat made out of the same mould as Tim's boat, I sailed Tim's at a recent reggatta and it was faster than Twice Bitten and more bouyant, possibly able to cope with full F16 weight, so think it may be worth having two rigs and take on the Taipans and others with F16 rig.

By all means. Sounds exciting ! Just measure in with respect to the F16 rules and you're in. Please read the F16 rules carefully they are pretty straight forward but in some case a few words are key to fully understanding what is allowed and what not. I refer again to the F16 rule on "mast TIP weight" over a (non existant) rule about "mast weight". Be sure to read the definitions at the end of the integral rule set as well.

Regards,

Wouter

"Something else I am interested to know regarding the F16 rules if I put a larger rig and wings on my Mosquito and it all fitted within the F16 rule would I be able to race as a optimised F16. I have sold Twice Bitten and am currently looking at getting a new boat made out of the same mould as Tim's boat, I sailed Tim's at a recent reggatta and it was faster than Twice Bitten and more bouyant, possibly able to cope with full F16 weight, so think it may be worth having two rigs and take on the Taipans and others with F16 rig."

Hi Gary, good to see you`re considering staying with the Mozzie ! Have you thought of just getting longer beams & a spare (larger) tramp to get the boat to max. beam ? that would add less weight than racks, be easier to sail with & get the weight of one hull out where it adds righting moment. Only downside would be dismantling boat between F16 & standard mozzie for class racing.
Are you thinking of going full height mast, or just maxxing the sail area out on the mozzie mast?
Which mould did Tim`s hulls come out of, Chris Trewern`s or Faye ? I quite like the look of Trewern`s hulls, very narrow decks with more bouyancy lower down.

Cheers
Steve

Hi Bob,
I am afraid I have sailed against your mythical sailor he has spent twice as much money as anybody else in the class, and has a full carbon boat with more lead on it than any one else in the class and has the only boat on the water out of what he descibes as the fastest mould yet made. Of course this is not the only reason he has won aprox. eight nat. titles in a row, but it certainly does make him hard to beat. I was talking more of perceptions than actualities.

Gary.

Hi Wouter,
Didn't mean to upset anybody I certainly wouldn't suggest making any existing boats ineligible, just thought you were canvasing ideas and they were my thoughts. I have read the F16 rules carefully and if you made the lower section of the mast heavy enough you could make a ultra light top section and still have a tip weight of 6.5kg. as the full length of the mast is being weighed. If the reason for this rule is seaworthiness it may be worth adding a balance point measurment, when I raced in Contender dinghies they had a balance test on the mast to avoid ultra light mast tips. However I do like the simplicity of the F16 rules and can see you have tried to keep them few in number which is why I made the suggestion on materials as it is much harder to play with mass produced Aluminium products and generaly cheaper.
Regards Gary.

Hi Steve,
I had thought of wider beams and tramp etc. but the mossie has to incease in weight anyway to get to 104kg. so I thought wings would be easier and cheaper. As far as the mainsail is concerned I was going to talk to the sailmaker and see what he thought, Iam also not sure if the F16 main is that much larger in area anyway the mossie main is listed on info sheet as 12.76sq mt. Tims boat is a Faye mould the mould is now owned by two guys from the mossie assoc. this is the new boat I am looking at as Chris is unable to build me a boat in the next few months and I want one yesterday.

Regards Gary.

Hi Gary

That sheds a bit of light on your perspective…I am sure you would like to swap boats with this guy for a few races and see just how much of it is the boat, and how much is his sailing ability…and yes I can see where one could feel like they are sailing an upwind battle against someone who, all other things being equal, is a “shoe in” to win, even if it was purely psychological.

That has to taint his victories a bit as well… No matter how confident he projects himself as the ultimate sailor in that class. It is kind of sad for him, because if I understand you correctly, the guy has a lot of sailing talent, and he will never know if it is his talent or his boat…and of course… his competitors will always attribute it to his boat.

You could drive yourself nuts trying to close all the loopholes a bottomless pocket sailor could exploit. Even in strict one design, he/she could buy a new boat or at least a new set of sails every race if they wanted to. In trying to “reign in” one of these types we could close off a lot of positive exploration within the class.

Bob

Hi Gary,
I`ve always read that the Australian Mozzies weigh in at 85kg, I`d love it if you could tell me how you get the boats so light. The South African boats are a good deal heavier, mine weighed in at 99kg sloop, before we added spinnakers, and was the lightest boat in the fleet at the time by some 5kg.
"I had thought of wider beams and tramp etc. but the mossie has to incease in weight anyway to get to 104kg." - Again, with spinnaker kit added my boat weighed in at 107kg, I wish I had to add weight to get to 104.
I`ve come up with an estimated weight of items based on weights I`ve measured in the past, some are optimistically light for the purpose of this exercise :
Platform weight = 55kg (mine is 58kg)
mast fully fitted = 12kg
Mainsail & boom = 10kg (Mylar mainsail, battens incl.)
Rigging wires incl. halyards = 4kg
daggerboards = 4kg (for both)
rudders incl stocks = 5kg
Spinnaker kit = 7kg (incl. pole, sheets, blocks & snuffer)
Jib kit = 4kg (incl. sheets & blocks)
This totals at 101kg, and If you add mainsheets & a few other bits I might`ve forgotten, you will easily get 104kg if not more.
If you have any hints as to how to reduce weight, please let me know (send a private message if you don`t want to share your secrets with other Australians )

Cheers
Steve

Greetings,

First, I'm in agreement on the rules change. As somebody said, no need to have things in the rules that aren't necessary.

Second, Wouter, your response to Gary's suggestion on aluminum masts and beams reminded me why I was attracted to the F16 class in the first place. I think there is much to be said for allowing F16's to built using cutting edge technology and materials, while at the same time encouraging those with older boats to configure them as F16's.

Who know's, maybe one of these days I'll consider Skip's suggestion and build a little class legal wing mast...

On a sad note, I'm afraid the cost of USA74 took a major jump over the weekend. My fears that my old tramp deck needed replacing where confirmed when I stepped through it... But I have a new one on order and will be sailing as soon as it gets here.

John

Gary,

>>Didn't mean to upset anybody I certainly wouldn't suggest making any existing boats ineligible, just thought you were canvasing ideas and they were my thoughts.

I am collecting these thoughts and I, for one, didn't feel upset by your post. So please go ahead.

I will of course make a selection of ideas we'll continue to run with and which are of lesser concern. I'm sure you understand that.

With regard to your example.

>>I have read the F16 rules carefully and if you made the lower section of the mast heavy enough you could make a ultra light top section and still have a tip weight of 6.5kg. as the full length of the mast is being weighed.

I understand, allow me to react in the following and I'm still familairizing myself with your proposal:

1st There isn't much point in restriction something when the expected gain is neglectable. With regard to your example how will a 6.5 kg tip weight mast with a 13 kg lower halve and a 4.33 kg upper halve, thus 17.33 kg overal weight with a 1st order moment of 55,23 kg*m to be prefered over a normal mast of 13 kg overall weight and thus 6.5 tip weight + 55.25 kg*m first order moment ? For starters the "new" mast is 4.33 kg overall with respect to the old mast.

2nd How big is the risk and how serious is the thread that someone would invest a very large sum of money for and preceived gain that may be measured in a few second around the course ?

There should be a very serious reply to both of these points to warrant a rule change. In short it must be made clear that the current tipweight rule isn't leveling the playing field enough already.


>>However I do like the simplicity of the F16 rules and can see you have tried to keep them few in number which is why I made the suggestion on materials as it is much harder to play with mass produced Aluminium products and generaly cheaper.

To keep the rules simple and easil administered is trully a significant concern. With respect to carbon; a builder ones said to me that back in the old days sailors were trying to outlaw alu mast as they were fragile and expensive with respect to wooden masts. It was only a matter of time when teh alu masts proved to be stronger and cheaper. It is not unthinkable that something similar might actually happen to carbon masts as well.

Also the F16 rules are aimed at limiting performance along broad lines. We strive to work towards cheap designs but feel that paying double the price for a boat that is as good as neglectably faster if noticable at all is a selfdefeating excersize. We currently see buyers go for the cheaper F16's over the more expensive ones. Apparent none are to concerned about having the ultimate. I for one with have no issues sailing against another F16 of 4 times the cost as I know that any extra gain are easily lost by not getting into clear air at the start for example. Chances are that teh skipper just spend 3 times to much on a boat that is unlikely to win him any races unless his skill was of winner quality already. Of course that last stance is what we are promoting and what the mossies themself are proving over and over again. Sail well and you come out on top even on a boat with arguable a (huge?)10 % theoretical performance disadvantage.

Please lets continue on this discussion and see where we end up

Regards

Wouter

There is a proposal to delete jib rule 1.13.1 "The leech shall not be convex"

It has been pointed out that this rule serves no purpose in the current F16 setup. Arguably it is a leftover from the F18 rules we used in 2001 to draft the first set of F16 rules. The current area measurement methode includes all area despite the fact wether the leech is convex or concave. So the rule is not needed here. Also the F18's appear to use this rule to facilitate furling of the jib, which is required for safety. The F18 rules also ban fully battened jibs. F16 rules contain neither prohibation nor is it believed that a fully battened jib is a safety issue in strong winds. Afterall a fully battened jib sheet can be completely loose and the jib will just weathervane to the wind without flapping about. F20 class has already allowed these features. So the "jib leech shall not be convex" in the F16 rule is unlinked to any other rule or any structure inside the F16 rules. It is therefor useless and only impeding improved design rather than equalizing performance or limiting costs. In addition to this we see that fully battened jibs are getting into the F16 designs and a little convex leech is desirable for these jibs. Also the Taipan 4.9's are really helped by allow convex leeches as their foretriangle is relatively small and it is difficult to get the full F16 area in.

For this reason it is proposed to drop this rule 1.13.1 "The leech shall not be convex" altogether.

This vote will run for 2 weeks and then be closed on wednesday 7 july 2004 at 12:00 UTC (GMT)




Wouter

Wouter,
How do you keep track of who has voted?

>>How do you keep track of who has voted?

I don't keep track who has voted what but the voting script allows only one vote per PC so one has to take some effort and know how to trick the system to cast multiples vote.

Can it be cheated ? Yes, when you know how, but if you really want you can cheap at almost anything.

Alot of preprocessing goes on before the vote is put to the forum. By the time the actual vote is on the forum I have a pretty good idea what the general mood around a particular vote and what voting turnout is to be expected. When the voting completely contradicts this general mood then I have tools to find out what happened and can take appropriet action.

But up till now all the voting on this forum has been done with honesty and fairness. We haven't encountered a manipulated vote since we started using this voting methode. I do understand however that when the class growths beyond a certain size that an improved methode is required.

We did use an different methode in the vote on the complete F16 rule set in nov 2002. I used sailnumbers then as guard against doublevoting.

But for now the current methode is dependable and fair

Wouter

The blank vote is mine.

Because, as long as the boat is not too long, not too wide and dosn't carry too much sail area, that's good anough for me.

Tony Jenkins

I voted to get rid of the rule..
Shouldnt surprise anyone..

Hey Stewart , I knew I could count on you in this one ! I'm far more concerned about your reaction on the second rule proposal.

Wouter

Ok.. Wouter..
I guess This means your looking to restrict something that doesnt need restricting..

Jib rule vote = closed ! And rule change is accepted with 90% in favour

From now on the leech of the jib maybe concave, straight or even convex. Whatever has you fancy

This has come into effect fully on 7th of july 2004

Wouter