The whole point of the "C" class being the class for "the little America's cup" seems to have been missed completely! The "little Americans cup" is a challenge more for exploring the cutting edge, the outer limits, the "what is impossible then making it possible" of catamaran sailing. It is a challenge of innovation, invention, and exploration, bounded only by the minimum of requirements of length, beam, and sail area, all the rest is only bounded by the imagination, skill, available technical knowledge, and finances. Its more like the boundary's of "Star Treck" than of competitive "class" racing - "To boldly go where no man has gone before".
To bring it down to the level of "ordinary" "class" racing between sailors on relatively "equal" catamarans demeans the whole concept of the, so called "Little America's Cup"
Darryl

Bill,

Allow me to react to your comments point by point :

You wrote : If you had to rank the different classes from more open to less open, I would rank the C Class most open, the A Class and the HT in the middle and the F18, Tornado, etc. the least open.


If I were to rank it, honestly, it would run like : C-class, A-class, F16 class, F18 HT class, F18/F20, Tornado, etc

The reasons for it will be clear later on :


>>The HT rules were modeled after the A Class rules. We wrote the rules with existing boats already in production in mind and with the input of manufacturers and sailors.


This is a irrelevant point by now. I agree that it may have started out like but by now it has transformed itself way beyond the origins.


>>The intent of the HT rules was to include existing HT's and to encourage development within reason.

That sounds like a formula concept to me and not like "development class" concept. Development classes in basis do not occupy themselds with "development within reason. I give as examples A-cat (flyer does outdating all others over night), Moth (foiler outdating all others over night); 18 foot skiff (bethwait 18's outdating all others over night).

Limiting development to maintain the class or slowly outdate older designs in a controlled way is very much a formula concept. In this is differs from a class like A-cats. But then again the name is FORMULA 18HT class.


>>We are however, reviewing and discussing changes to the rules set to encourage more development over time.
>>One such discussion involves increasing the corrector weights, and over time, lowering the minimum weight.


Lowerin minimum weight over time would be such a encouragement of (some) development; raising the corrector weight limit is not. As it stands now the 4 kg allowed under HT rule is only a portion of the 7 kg allowed under F18/F20 and F16 rules. So if going to say 7 kg allowed corrector weights makes HT a development class than F18/F20/F16 have already been development classes for years by the same criterium.

Besides, it is not considered any development to build HT's lighter athan 130 kg afterall not having a jib allows you to take out weight from the hulls. They have been building 18 squares at 80 kgs during the 80's already so the development has already been done. It is now a question wether HT as a class is going to incorporate the available knowledge. This may be a development for the HT sailor but is not a development for the larger catamaran scene. For that we must look at Marstrom and his M20 at 115 kg's. That was a true trailblazer.


>>We feel that we should be flexible and make changes to the rule set carefully and over time to give everyone a chance to plan their investments over time, and not be locked in so that new models can embrace new technologies and materials as they become more mainstream.


Yes, a true statement in itself; however, as you did guess already, other classes have already gone before you. F18 allows carbon boards and rudders. F16 allows carbon everywhere and here it has been used everywhere already as well. A-cat alot new stuff was pioneered here. The only new thing about the HT was the carbon mast but then again the I-20 had that for many years now as well. I'm not looking to diss the HT class but we have heard alot of talk of development but haven't seen anything yet that was pioneered in the HT class. Pretty much all has been copied from other classes. Now your statements are not at all bad in themself but if they are true then we must quite calling it a development class and admit to the reality.



>>The spirit of the rules is "anything that is not specifically prohibited is allowed" - so for example curved lifting daggerboards like the 60Tri's are not specifically prohibited.


Actually they are :

Rule B.3.5.1. Foils designed to lift the boat clear of the water are prohibited

Bans full foiling

AND

rule B.3.1.2. Each hull shall be symmetric around its own centerplane, which centerplane may not be vertical when the boat is level

Disallows any angled or curved boards as you can't a symmetrical hull with these no matter how you lay the centreplane through the hull. I also don't understand how this rule allows canted hulls. Afterall the beamlandings of a canted hull will never be symmetrical for any centreplane that divides the remainder of the hull in two symmetrical halves.

I just wonder why the HT rules fret about having hulls that are symmetrical. It serves no purpose forcing this and besides the rule disallows nice features like integrated tramp tracks. It complicates things unnecessarily. Why disallow assymetrical hulls at all ? If anything development is to be found in asymmetric designs as symmetric design have pretty much been fully developped by now.

But to keep with my point : Either the HT rule contradict one another or angled or curved daggerboard wells are disallowed. The wells are ofcourse part of the hulls.



>>Use your imagination and most likely it is allowed.


I can think of several development paths that are all disallowed by the current rules. To name a few :

-1- Lightweight rudders and board by altering the make-up along the baords :

= banned by rule B.3.5.3. Each Daggerboard or .... Distribution of material in the Daggerboard ... shall be homogeneous

-2- Sailforce increase by induced stern downforce. By having the T-foils rotated downwards the stern is pulled in allowing more saildrive on reaches before dippign bows in. Each kg additional drag could theoretically add 5 kg extra thrust a net gain of 4 kg or 10 % on most cats.

= B.3.5.2.2. The horizontal "T"; must be rigidly fixed to the vertical rudder surface and the angle of the horizontal "T"; shall not be adjustable in any way while sailing.

-3- Advanced Toe-in of hulls

= banned by rule B.3.1.3. The hulls shall be substantially parallel.

-4- Hooter like sails or screachers.

= banned by rule B.5.5.2. The Half Width of the Spinnaker shall be greater than 75% of the Foot Length (SMG>75%*SF)

-5- mast top spinnakers

= banned by rule B.5.5.3. The distance from the top of the main beam to the highest point to which the spinnaker can be effectively hoisted shall not be greater than 8.60 m.


The F18/F20 and F16 classes use relatively more extreme hoist heights than the HT class. The HT's just found out that increasing the luff of the spinnaker makes speed gains. Well, welcome to the club; the other F sailors knew this already and had more relatively longer luffs for some years already. I think it was even discussed in a HT related thread some two years ago.



>>Changes to the spinnaker and spin pole produced significant increases in speed this year and every US team that I know of is not at the max hoist height, so more spin development (more speed) is likely.


Bill, pardon my French here, I'm trully happy for you but the HT's are not even running the full ISAF pole length yet. F18 poles are longer and F18 hoist height is about what you are using now. This may be spin development for you guys but thus far you are only catching up to the others. With respect to spi shapes and cut the developement is wholely copied from the F18's and Tornado's


>>Also, most of the Bim HT's are heavy and could go on diet and still be over the min weight. So, the development aspect is alive in the HT class, just not as extreme or expensive as the C Class.


Call my a sour old git but living up to your own (very modest) minimum weight is not what the larger cat sailing scene understands as development. Afterall in 1993 a 19 foot sloop rigged 2.5 mtr wide catamaran was developped that featured a spinnaker on a aluminium mast. It was 135 kg. 10 years later some builder designed a shorter hulled cat and replaced the alu mast for a carbon one, removed the jib and the related hull reinforcements and still made it 135 kg.

How can I put this gently. You guys think and talk more about development than actually doing it. Right now you have yet the pass the markers that were put in the ground by other classes and designers. This is all still catching up. In this respect development is NOT alive in the HT class it has not even been born yet.

Sorry.


>>Yet, even as I write this,I know that you will argue, "So what, its all been done before." Yes, you are right, it has all been done before, but it hasnt been done before in a 2 man, lightweight, development class way.

Talk Taipan 5.7 with me please
Talk Marstrom M20 with me please
Talk Eagle carbon 20 with me please
Even Formula 16 class has a head start on you by now

To name but a few.

Sure you can remove three in the above listing by adjusting your defination to :

2 man, lightweight, uni-rigged, development class

And you can go one further by claiming :

2 man, 18 foot, lightweight, uni-rigged, development class

But who are we kidding here ? I don't believe you are fooling any significant amount of the catsailors.

Sure I think the F18 class is adding to many rules to their framework and the Tornado guys are growing to a OD class if not SMOD class status. So in that respect yes you guys have a place and a interesting setup. But you are a far cry from a development class as long as FOR EXAMPLE a non development class like the F16 class.

allows any shape hulls symmetrical or asymmetrical
allows T-foils of any size and shape
allows the hound or hounds to be fitted anywhere you want
allows any alignment of the hulls, parallel , toe-in or toe-out
allows any material distribution in any part of the design
has no minimum or maximum weights for boards or rudders
does not rule in any way on the shape, dimensions or make-up of any individual component.
does not include any rule like :

B.3.1.3.1. The minimum distance between the hulls shall not be less than the maximum width of the platform less the combined maximum beam of the hulls.

Can anybody explain this rule to me and then give me the reason why it is part of the ruleset ?

To name but 8 points.

Now lets be perfectly clear I don;t consider the F16 class to be a development class. So this is not a pissing contest. It is just an example that 18HT is not even located between the A-cats and the more normal formula classes any more. Right now it is difficult to see any more difference between the HT and the F18 class except for the use of the carbon mast. That in itself is not enough.

So please proof me wrong. Do something interesting. REALLY interesting not some inflated yesterdays news. I'm hoping that this secret Marstrom design will be the start of it.

Trully with regards,

Wouter

exactly!