Hello all
<br>
<br>
<br>The philosophy of US cat racers is a greater problem then the technical merits of the formulae rule that you are trying to work out. I would encourage you to keep In mind during this process the philosophical hurdle of "I would rather just race the same type of boat... AKA one design... (if I can). The underlying philosophy of a one design fleet is solely competition. Basically.... the sailors in the larger one design fleets say to themselves.... "Change anything for a formula rule and compromise my one design status... Why? ... we worked very hard to build this fleet... change is BAD… What YOU (formula proponent) should REALLY do... is sail an XXX it is the biggest.... and therefore the best one design fleet in the area. In contrast the he formula philosophy takes the ideal of competition and adds to it inclusiveness ( all formulae boats welcome) AND weight compensation.. (different sails for different sized teams). I feel that these ideals are very important and should be celebrated in you formula philosophy. The discussion so far clearly indicates your intentions.
<br>
<br>The major problem is the one design philosophy will not really die. Rest assured as soon as 5 boats routinely turn out… they will start arguing for a one design start because Hey.. we are the biggest one design class in the area… get this type of boat and join in… One day, we will be large enough so that we will have competition at all the weight ranges AND it will be inclusive because every one will be sailing an X boat. Moreover the racing organizations lead this effort. Look at the consequences of the debate on who will lead NAHCA over the issue of non hobie racing at Hobie regattas. Imagine the debate, if 5 Hobie tigers and 5 Nacra F18's show up at a Hobie points regatta … Hobie Policy according to McVeigh and Alter and existing Hobie rules would seem to argue that they will have two races… NOT a single formula 18 race. The Tigers will race one design as Hobie Tigers and the f18's will race in the X class. Alter has argued that this policy will cause the F18 sailors to be persuaded to convert to Tigers OR… go sail in open. (He does not even want to score the open class on corrected time.) I think that the yearly decline in one design cat racing at weekend regattas in state parks sponsored by our existing organizations is strong evidence that this policy is not working.
<br>
<br>I really don’t have a solution to the social and political problem of one design versus formulae style of racing. I believe that a formula rule (or a Portsmouth race) will help. How could formula work in the US? Given that most cat regattas are one design AND in the case of a Hobie points regatta case require you to race in your one design fleet and not a formula fleet, I think it will be difficult. I believe that you will need leadership at the NAHCA and Division level for an 18 formula class to take off. It will also work IF… one design does not take off in an area AND you have several similar types of boats interested in the same kind of racing AND the sailors value inclusiveness and weight compensation plus competition (This is just another format of Carl’s ideal of "fair sailing").
<br>
<br>
<br>It seems to me that you have a large I20 fleet in Michigan and pockets (5 or 6) around the country AND you have 15 or so Tornado's racing on a national basis. PLUS a handful of Hobie Foxes out west… (Alter has even suggested that this Hobie class will probably not fly and sailors should really switch to a Tiger). All told you have about 100 boats racing spinnakers around triangles in the USA.
<br> Carl wrote -Did not sign up to get in personal opinion duscusion -
<br>my opologies if I have offended any , but this class will not be successfull if we adopt existing I-f-20 -no I-20S will partisipate per posts as we see ,--If we adopt I-20 sail areas no others will partisipate . -
<br>We are forced to create an innovative solution and hopefully something better will elolve from our efforts that may become the model for others.
<br>CARL
<br>
<br>I would frame the question as What formula rule would include these types of boats so that they race equally. The French Multihull championships rated the new Tornado, Euro I20 and Fox equally under the old texel rule. This sounds like a good start…. The advantage to sailors would be increased competition, weight correction and a larger group of sailors to associate with. Why not stop there? Trying for a formula rule that promotes development could kill the baby in delivery.
<br>
<br>Moreover, struggling to included the current non spin classes H20 and N6.0 and the older members of the dead boat society Tornado’s, Mysteres, Prindles and Supercats probably does not payoff in participation. They are probably not going to upgrade their old equipment in large numbers to worry about in the construction of a formula rule class. (What was the conversion rate in Europe for boats meeting the F18 rule?)
<br>
<br>I feel the sociology (pathology pending your point of view) is more difficult to resolve then the particular formula rule. I would poll the I20 fleet and see where they stand on a formula versus one design race format for most racing. If these sailors are flexible about racing 10 foot wide Tornado’s (There is no way I will cut down my tornado) and Hobie Foxes even up then I believe that you will have the start of a formulae class. Down the road, other builders might choose to compete with performance and offer a superior boat or one that costs less and allows you to compete even up with the defacto US i20 formula. You will always be able to rescore the I20, Tornado and Fox fleets separately as one design and in Portsmouth.
<br>
<br>
<br>Take Care Mark
<br>
<br><br><br>

oops... I should have signed the last post.
<br>Mark
<br>is Mark Schneider
<br>Take Care
<br><br><br>

Hi Mark -
<br> Appreciate the analysis so far, good views, but am always a little leery of theatrical statements like --quote -{Why not stop there? Trying for a formula rule that promotes development could kill the baby in delivery. }-- -The alarm system always kicks in when I read those, or one used the term "bastardizing rules " - -
<br>-As we already read in another post by Marc mhb -new 20 boats are already being designed and built, they will continue to be built each year in larger numbers, new development, better lighter faster safer more seaworthy boats will continue to be developed. No matter how much any individual would like everything to stay the same, the only certain thing is change.
<br>
<br>-We need to realize this reality, again the main reason the 1967 Tornado is still around, it has been allowed to develop, be built lighter, and modify over time, beyond the original B Class rule it was originally designed to in 1967, -if this had not occurred it would have vanished just as so many others have .We need to allow a class that becomes a part of this, and that encourages innovation and design excellence, allows all existing 20 s to race, along with FAIR SAILING for all.
<br>
<br>-The other point you mention -{we can always race Portsmouth} ------It is very unfortunate that the powers that be in the U S, decided not to adopt ISAF rating for small cats but because several placed time to try to repair the fundamental inaccuracies of it by adding numerous design measurement modification factors to it rather than a total rework, choose an inaccurate method of averages that placates sailors as opposed to providing accurate mathematically correct systematic design measurement based on proven design formula ratings . -
<br> Talk about politics, -and the tactics of keeping Portsmouth in place, --whew -
<br> -Our task would be much easier, the U S will eventually catch up with the rest of the cat sailing world in this area and change to it as we all become more familiar with A Class and Formula concepts and ideals.
<br>
<br>-The 20 Class, --- We all bring our own human bias to the discussion, ---If your a boat dealer you want rules favoring your brand of cat, -{watch the N A 18 rules struggle} --If your Hobie cat oriented You want Hobie first, --if you sail an Inter 20, you want all rules written to match the mast and sail area. ---If you sail a N -6/0 you want a larger chute, thus faster than the I-20, --If your a big heavy sailor you want only 350 pound crews allowed, --If your small you want light weight allowances 270 min. --If your a Euro F-sailor you want the F rules strictly enforced , -If you own a Fox, -the same , --If a Hobie 20 you want mast compensation and weight rule and length allowances, --If a P 19, the same, -if you sail a Tornado you want a 10 ft beam, -on and on, we all bring em all to the discussion ,-we all are competitive ,-But , what is really best for ALL -?
<br>
<br> We need to agree on our mission, What are our IDEALS and GOALS -
<br>
<br> PROPOSE IT IS FIRST AND FORMOST EQUAL FAIR SAILING FOR ALL, --not any of the above exclusively, but INCLUSIVELY FOR ALL,
<br> If we can all agree on that then proposals that do not meet the basic IDEAL are rejected for that overriding principle.
<br> Please read rule #2 in your ISAF rules book if your in doubt !!
<br>
<br>--Working on adding crew weight to the boat weight ratio scale at min 320, -Through a graduated factor at the lightest through 3 of 10 crew and boat weight categories in 10 LB increments, and adding 3 at the top, heaviest end of combined crew and boat weights.
<br> This would standardize sail area to boat weight as it is proposed, but add crew weight to the formula, at the lightest end 3 progressively heavier crews of 330 340 and 350 would be required. --All boats designed and built would target as Marc has done a designed boat weight, add av. crew weight, and have a defined sail area, larger crews could increase jib spin area as per existing F-rules, but again larger crews could opt for the lightest end boat requiring 350 lb crew {only catagory }or lighter teams carry dead weights to match. -
<br> -I like the simpler version of a min crew weight throughout, but trying out concepts that apply to the OVER RIDING PRINCIPLE, --Can we all agree on this mission statement GOAL ? -
<br>
<br> All the best -
<br> Carl Roberts
<br><br><br>

Taking part in this discussion has taught me a lot. I thought at first that we all had the same basic goals in mind. However, I have learned that each person has his own unique view of how this class should be constructed including me. I thought it wouldn't be that hard with a lot of the work done for us by the EURO rules but I was wrong. Then I thought it would be easy to get agreement on a basic box rule. That turns out to be tough again.
<br>
<br>I think it's going to take about 10 people elected by their area and with input from their area to sit in a room and not come out until they reach a unanimous position on a set of rules. And all the participants must agree that they will support and be proponents of the rule that comes out of the room.
<br>
<br>It's just that it is a lot tougher than it looked on the surface. It almost does not seem like a problem that can be solved on a forumn such as this.
<br>
<br>Does anyone think that US Sailing Multihull Council should look into this issue? Or do you think that is beyond the scope of the Multihull Council? These are your elected US Sailing representatives.
<br>
<br>Mike Hill
<br>H20 #791 (Area K Representative for the Multihull Council)
<br><br><br>

Hi Mike and Carl
<br>
<br>It seems to me that the pool of racers who want to race triangles with chutes is small and primarily I20's and Tornado's. The N6,0's have not expressed much interest in triangle racing with their chutes. they have a small one design class and going with the chutes would split that up in half. Much the same as the P19's in florida with chutes and non chute starts.. Critical mass is hard to achieve.
<br>
<br>I think that a formula class has to start with the I20 sailors and ask... WILL THEY race formula (assuming for arguments sake NO changes to their rig) or are they committed to one design when they get it. If they poll suggest they are committed to one design when they get it THEN the formula rule will take a different course. If they are interested in racing with a weight correction system of sails or whatever and other designs the debate will take on a different format.
<br>
<br>I think that a formula class must offer something in addition to what you find in a one design class. For instance, weight correction systems. As an I20 sailor... if I don't loose anything and gain an effective weight correction system I would elevate formulae above one design above portsmouth in my internal scheme.
<br>
<br>On the other hand... i sail a tornado.
<br>I think the elite of the tornado fleet will answer No... our national regattas are strictly one design and geared for the Olympic slot. Fleet racers like myself would be very interested in a formulae class racing I20's and other designs.
<br>
<br>So... I would rank the first goal as how to get I 20's into formulae racing. If they are not interested then the discussion would be quite different. My point of view.
<br>
<br>I guess I start the discussion from the political or people side of the fence and not the technological side... (of how do we get to a fair and inclusive rule). If the overwhelming majority of players don't want the product. well we have some thinking to do. ..
<br>
<br>Locking a group in a room for the purpose of creating a formula might not be a winning people strategy.
<br>
<br>Watch what happens to the US Formula 18 startup. Those sailors buying Tigers and F18's or Inter 18's will have to decide.. One design or formulae... I think the siren call of one design supported by Hobie one design racing will win out.
<br>
<br>Somewhat pessimistic
<br>Mark<br><br>

Mark,
<br>
<br>No real disagreement from my side. I think we are on the same page. It's more about what the sailors want. I think we would have to put together a proposal that would have to apeal to the I20 class and then we would have a critical mass to start from. If the builders see that this class is comitted to F20 then they would fall in line to build boats that would comply.
<br>
<br>Mike Hill
<br>H20 #791
<br><br><br>

Hi Mike
<br>
<br>Ok... I spoke with a couple of I20 sailors on the bay. One sailor is very good and the others are in the pack so to speak. They would support a formula class. The lightweight teams would love to be able to drop some sail area on the I20 the heavyweight teams would love to see them lose some sail area. They would support a formula 20 class which would not require them to slow their boat down (unless they need to depower it).
<br>The have also recognized that the tornado sailors are not switching over and so they might as well try to race each other
<br>
<br>I suggest that a formula advocate try to poll some of the key I20 sailors in their region and get a feel for just what is possib le with their respective fleets. The key to success is what do the current fleets with 10 boat one design turnouts want to see.
<br>
<br>My second point would be to make sure the discussion is focused on buoys racing. Distance racing has so many variables in play (look at the time spreads in the one design worrel fleet) that an inclusive formulae rule does not have to be perfect. P19's would consider racing I 20's even up on a distance race with some of the formulaes that are being debated.
<br>
<br>Take Care
<br>Mark
<br><br><br>

Mark,
<br>
<br>It seems we would need to get a feel from the key fleets of I20's.
<br>
<br>Key Area's:
<br>Southern California (Alan, ...)
<br>Florida ( North and South) (Nigel, Alex, Brian, John Casey, Dave Ingram, ...)
<br>Michigan ( Carl, ...)
<br>Northeast (Barry, ....)
<br>Texas ( Gaines, Tomko, Piche, Ian, ...)
<br>
<br>If we could get a representative from each area to give us a list of names for and against, it would be interesting. My bet is that it would be overwhelmingly for a Formula Class but I've been suprised before.
<br>
<br>Mike Hill
<br>H20 #791
<br><br><br>

Hi Mike
What kind of regattas are the Inter's racing in. Formulae racing is not one design and I would not want to assume that one would morph into the other.

Chesapeake Bay/Mid Atlantic... Triangles races 4 sonsored by hobie fleets 4 by yacht clubs/ cat sailing clubs Distance races CRAC and Yacht clubs. All are open class races.

Michigan One design in CRAM.

New England Barry reported 4 to 5 inters probalby racing in open class.<br><br>

--Believe you will find in polling sailors ,I-20 s or any that the basic attitude is the more the merrier , lets race , as long as I don,t have to spend big $ and the racing is FAIR .
<br>
<br>-I have 2 jibs and 2 chutes and need new ones and a new main this year , badly blown out ,,-{only after a couple thousand miles } -
<br>-Having one extra chute to Formula rules is not a problem ,
<br> I would like to get them from the local sailmaker of my choosing ,-and modify my boat the way I choose,with better rudders or jib , or adding lighter gear and lines .
<br>-believe this holds true for most existing cat owners.
<br>
<br>-Wish there were some good simple way to equalize performance ratings for 20 ft cats with larger beam , but the performance differences are too varied through the wind ranges .---[SEE PREVIOUS POST containing a segment by noted designer on weight and beam effects} for more info on the subject under weight considerations .
<br> Adding 18 inch racks would do it ,but no one would want the expence and added weight .
<br>
<br>-The Tornado with it's lighter weight and smaller sailplan with 10 ft beam has a tremendous advantage when the wind kicks in as many of us have experienced in open racing .
<br>-In light wind we can sail away , but as the wind kicks in the 8,5 beam boat with its larger sail area is struggling to depower and pinching into the wind while the 10 beam cat with lighter weight and smaller sailplan comes into its ideal designed higher wind range and passes by with its average 450 more ft lbs of increased crew righting lever arm working against the force or thrust of the sails.
<br>
<br>-The sail area to weight scale formula proposed for all 8.5 beam 20 ft cats equalizes performance averages , with the existing heavier cats with larger sailplans potentially sailing faster in the lighter wind ranges , while the newer lightweight design cats with smaller sailplans would potentially , just as the Tornado , excell as the wind kicked in , though not for reasons of beam , while the larger sailplan cats were trying to depower . -
<br>-note; reef points are allowed on the main and jib as an alternate means of depowering when its really blowing , and the 2 chute sizes {smaller } enter into racing strategy.
<br>-Which combination of boat crew weight and sail area would prove the fastest , ---It will vary in each condition between many different types of boats ,--which will be the ideal design combination ? believe somewhere in the middle of the scale , at which most new cats will target this ideal design average for best overall performance .
<br>
<br>-The most fun with a sailing rating rule would be to just allow a max, sail area and place whatever sailing craft underneath it ,--would it be a cat ,--a tri ,,--a skiff ,,--a foiler , ?
<br>
<br>-We have great existing cat designs of all types weights and sail plans in the 20 ft catagory respective to the 18s and 16s . --We have a practical consideration of trailering width of 8.5 ft that most are built to , that leaves the sail areas and weight as the variables to define our class ,-To what precised extent they are defined is up to us ,
<br> To the extent of one design as iF does leads back to one mfg.boat dominating the racing scene and right back to one design , The more developemental scale allows us to find the ideal performance combination ,-which is infinately variable with each new weather system each new day . This is the perfect formula variable to ensure a long standing class that will not become outdated with it,s old tech heavy class boat in a few years . -
<br> Again look at the Tornado evolution towards lightweight quality building methodes, excellent design, and new modification over the years as the reason for its longevity, we could all just sail this excellent cat , but as we all know ,one cat does not fit all .-<br><br>

Hi Mike H. & Mark S.
<br>I am with you guy's 100% KEEP TALKING!
<br>
<br>Mike B<br><br>