Hello again swabbies!

Well, there is more to this issue than is being let out. Let me clue you in from a very reliable source.

1. NEW spin is fuller and sails at a deeper angle with same speed as current chute. When it gets windy, it is faster.
2. New circular boom being rammed down our throats.
3. New tramp is buttoned on the hull(hull change).
**4. Boat weight is being hashed around(hull change). New boats could be 40lbs lighter. That means the long forestay/short bridles can't be used.
**5. New longer fore/aft F18 style dagger to be introduced(hull change).
6. "F" is just a marketing ploy. This will not be an open class like the real F classes. Can you say hoodwinked?

** These are being talked out behind closed door. Will probably be seen soon.

I'm very much opposed to these changes. The larger chute needs to be significantly flatter. The rest of it is ****ing BS.

Is this what you guys want? A whole bunch of obsolete boats? One dealer should not run the class. Makes a Hobie 16 look real good if you are a one-design racer!

A very, very unhappy Bob Curry

I don't like it when people make Bob unhappy. Now I'm unhappy too.

Tracie

Bob,

I'm with you. I am (obviously) a big fan of the Performance product, but the way they've handled model, a.k.a. class, changes is terrible. What you describe is by far the worst yet. I'll conceed that a product line should be allowed to mature occasionally so that the boat and/or manufacturer can stay competative in the market - but this list of sweeping performance altering changes are asking a lot. I would expect this kind of change out of the F18 product but not a well established class like the I17.

Do the class members get to vote on any of these changes? I can understand why Performance Catamarans might want to insist on a change like the trampoline (easier production methods with minimal performance enhancement) but things like an optional spinnaker size, minimum hull weight, etc. should be brought to a vote.

It isn't a "Formula" class if there's only one to choose from.

I have a EU I17 and I really do not want a '1. NEW spin is fuller and sails at a deeper angle with same speed as current chute. When it gets windy, it is faster'

We are using 19 sq kites and have them fairly flat !

Flat Kites are Fast (as long as you know how to use them)

I was perplexed when Performance Catamarans announced the "F17". I don't want to get too far off topic but their chances of igniting a formula class as a manufacturer is very slim. Who else is going to build one to a class started by a competing boat manufacturer? Where are the rules? How about now, considering that the manufacturer has had a considerable head start! Have they consulted other builders regarding building competing boats or did they just throw this out there hoping it would catch on? {edit:} or did they just slap "F17" on it in order to justify a bunch of changes?

For comparison, F18 was started by sailors. Slightly narrowing the 'formula' definition to include 'box rule' classes and you will also see that the only other two healthy 'box rule' classes, the Tornado and A-class boats, were strongly sailor initiated.

http://www.f18-international.org/history.htm

**** stop. The only question is whether the existing class members have the balls to do it.

Think about it, Sails are not measured, boats are not weighed, rules are arbitrary. If you had a legit class association, you could enforce boat weights, sail measurments and everyone would know what the rules were. WOW novel concept!


Or you could just sell your overweight beast and buy an A class.

Sail fast, sail light
Eric Anderson

Look at the changes in the I20(including the name!)The NACRA 20 which I haved owned for 1 year has seen 3 changes in that short time period, none of which I as a NACRA Class member and active I20 class racer new were coming, or even more important, was asked about.
1.Sail cloth was changed.
2.Rudders were changed
3.Tramp has now changed

Where is the 1 design? Where is the class voting? Come on, as a "member" of a "Class", I think we should have some say.

David Mosley

Thanks Eric for bringing this up.

All I17R/Nacra 17 sailors,

Given the present situation, it is time for us to form our own class association. Let me here your thoughts. Boat owners only. Send me an email at [email][email protected].[/email] Let's put the class decisions where they should be; with you!

Bob Curry

David,

You forgot the new self tacker on the Nacra 20 too.

I don't have a dog in this argument. Just a couple of comments and a question.

Performance comes at a cost. I am constantly choosing between Tornado upgrades. For example, You don't HAVE to use a self tacker... Indeed my first setup was like the orignial I20.... However, this upgrade made the boat much more user friendly.

I will point out that the factory organizes a nationals. While it can be done without factory money and people... Its a hell of a lot easier with their backing.

What became of the Nacra 6.0NA initiative to update the class with a spin for nationals?

How about the Hobie 18 inititative to update the rig with a square top main and a few other upgrades to revitalize the boat?

Take Care
Mark

Curry,

You sure know how to stir up the pot !!

Mark

Mark,

What do you mean about the Nacra 6.0 spinnaker for nationals? From what I recall, the sailors asked to have the New England setup approved but Performance instead offered their own (and different) setup even though there was already a measured rule, a substantial number of New England class boats already in existance, and even a Portsmouth number. As far as I know, nobody has purchased the Performance offering but several more have upgraded to the New England rule on their own.

The Hobie 18 initiative to update the boat with a square head? I'm not familiar with that one but I suspect it was not approved in order to support the existing class racing. If you're talking about the 18SX, that thing left a bit to be desired in speed.

We're diluting the definition between a one design class and a box rule and the Tornado example is not a good one. Most I20, I17, I18, N6.0, etc. sailors bought into the class for one design, one manufacturer, racing. They don't expect to have to buy a new upgrade every three months in order to keep up with the Joneses (correct me if I'm wrong Bob). At the very least, they should be notified of future changes in time to voice an opinion and protect that which they have invested in. Or maybe just so they can budget for the upgrade when it comes out. The aforementioned boat owners that I know personally expected that they were in a one design class and have been pretty surprised by the recent changes. On the other hand, it would not be easy to create a sailor driven organization to control boat parameters without the close involvement of the manufacturer. How can you tell the manufacturer that they can't modify the trampoline design to a much easier and reliable style to make? You can dictate what size and shape spinnaker can be used and a minimum boat weight (as long as they don't start getting built heavy). Hopefully somebody out there in California will recognize that strengthening their sailor relationship could go a long way to enhanceing their business.

That being said, I'm all for forward progress even in a one design class. However, it should be done slowly and certainly with the involvement of those that have a vested interest.

Did the I20 really need any upgrades? Pretty nice out of the box. The self tacker made the boat easier to sail, which freed the crew up to concentrate on the spin, which makes it theoretically faster. The new rudders are suppose to fix the stall that we get sometimes. The new tramp fixes a problem(legitimate, but arguably faster by some)

Now I dont have any of these upgrades, so can I really compete with the boys that do? So is that one design?

I argue No.

The I20 fleet is strong in Florida, and I hope they can stay that way.

Dave Mosley
F18.. on the way(Still staying with NACRA)

The only real way to protect the one-design status of any class is to have it recognized as an International Class by ISAF. There are some significant hurdles to overcome (like having worldwide distribution), but once recognized, the class is protected from significant unilateral changes by the manufacturer.

The major Hobie classes (14, 16, 17, 18) are all International Classes. As an example of how difficult it is to make "significant" changes, it has taken over 3 years to approve the new outhaul and downhaul systems on the 14 and 16.

Matt,

Thanks for that piece of insight and you are exactly right! I don't think the Michigan crowd, with very few exceptions, have the backbone to stand up and fight this issue nor are there the numbers internationally for inclusion into the ISAF.
Since I'm a 2 boat owner, makes me think about heading to the HOBIE 14 nationals instead of this controversal performance one. And, thinking out loud, maybe we need to flood performance's parent company with all this hogwash. I do have that email from my sail industry days.

As always, IMO,(can't use the "H", I'm not humble anymore!)

Bob
If I use this Icon , that would be getting 'goosed'???

Bob - check out my current "restoration project" - a 1976 H-14! (Hull #5010). Set to be complete in the next week or so. Just enough time to get ready for North Americans!



While we'd love to have you in Syracuse, I think you would find the competition lacking (there are only 7 boats registered).

Hey- Thanks for posting the boat-parts-filled-garage image:
This will go straight home today so that my wife can see I'm not the only crazy one.

Bob, et al,

All members were sent the rules. All responses were positive to the proposed changes. Even you, Bob, got the rules from me, and you never joined the class! I'm not sure who you got your information from, but I saw the spinnaker sailed by three different skippers in the last two regattas. It could be sailed just as high as the stock spinnaker, appeared to have the same shape. It did better sailing lower because of the greater sail area...exactly what was intended by increasing sail area for "big boys".

The daggerboard change has nothing to do with width. It is the existing board (N 20 board) but has been shortened and the end of the board rounded off. There is no change to the daggerboard trunks. This modification can be done to the existing boards by the owner. This was already being incorporated prior to the proposed F17 changes and now the rules specifically account for it.

The Michigan guys got together to discuss the F17 Rules last Saturday night. They were universally favored! No objections, period! They have nothing to stand up and shout about because they know these changes help the fleet! Is it a marketing effort, and a good one! Thats how you grow the fleet. The last N17R sold in Michigan was 2002 until this proposed change. After the change, three new boats and 2 others planning for next year. The top two N5.5 Uni sailors jumped on the 17's in the last race on Sunday and both told me they had a lot of fun on it! One of those guys used (and qualifies for) the big spinnaker. Lots of interest in Michigan, and we had 6 N17R's on the starting line this weekend.

Is the change good for the class? Hell yes!
Was the class membership polled on the changes? Hell yes!
Were the members in favor of the changes? Hell yes!

Jack will be back from vacation tomorrow. Hopefully my dealer will put him on the spot and we can begin to get somewhere (or not) with this foolishness . I will post results of that conversation when I get the reply.

TTFN,
Bob

How much has the plate been shortened ?