Hi Mary, Glad you asked these questions, I might be well qualified to answer at least one of them, but will attempt an answer at both :

You wrote :
"I see on the F-16 website that it says the F16 class fits into the A-Class and can race with them boat for boat. We had hoped that would be the case when we got our Taipan 4.9, but turned out the Taipan is about 2(?) inches too wide. I suppose that is true of all the boats that are built to the maximum-width spec of the Formula 16 class?"

The Taipan is in fact narrower than the maximum allowed beam, Taipan is 2,34m, max. beam is 2,5m, so the Taipan is 16mm narrower. I don`t believe the web-site states that the F16 class fits within the A-class rules, which I think you are getting at, but given their very similar performances as per most semi-reliable handicapping systems (ie the European ones ) they should be able to sail the same course and compete with one another on an equal basis, ie their handicaps are equal or as close as dammit. Of course this would not happen often as when there is a large fleet of either A-class or F16 I`m sure they would prefer their own start, but it`s handy when there are a few of each class to put hem on the same course, same start and see who can come up with the win. It helps build bigger fleets out of similar performance boats, much the same way as F18 has done, just with smaller boats !
Of course, building or buying a boat that is at the maximum spec allowed will ensure a competitive boat within the class, in as much as modifying an older design will be less-than-ideal but will provide a good platform with which to "get involved". This has been done by a sailor in California, John Metzig, who has converted a Nacra 5.0 to F16. (search F16 forum for "Nacra F16"

"It looks intimidating for home builders and too restrictive to allow much creativity in sail plans and other features of the boat. And I do not get a feeling that it is "welcoming" to other classes that are not fully F-16 compliant but that fit within the specifications. "

In terms of creativity with sailplans etc, if you mean the Hooter, the design of this sail prevents it from being classified as a spinnaker as it`s mid-girth measurement isn`t 75% of it`s foot length, a specification required by ISAF, not the F16 class. If you sail with a Hooter they (ISAF) classify it as a headsail and you get penalised with a frightening handicap since you have a massive jib which can be used upwind in light airs, and they`re probably right in penalising the Hooter this way, since it seems Rick has proven that this is the case. Unfortunately you can`t use it upwind in strong conditions, if you could we`d all have one and Rick would be a wealthy man. !
On the issue of inclusiveness, the South African and Australian Mosquito classes have been included as dispensated boats within the class, even though we have smaller rigs and are under the min. weight. This means we can hold F16 regattas as long as we invite any fully-compliant F16 design to race with us. What this has done for us from a SA perspective is that we have invited the Hobie 16 sailors and for that matter the Dart 18 sailors who wish to sail with spinnakers to sail with us on a no-handicap basis, first in wins. You could view this as a non-professional approach, to which I`d agree, but one which gets more sailors on the water at our club and in our region. Regrettably the Hobie sailors don`t look ready to join us on two counts but that`s a separate issue which needs no introduction here.
Of course it would make no sense to arrive at a F16 regatta such as a worlds or national event with a Mosquito or a Hobie 16 with spinnaker as you`d be uncompetitive, but it provides the stepping stones for those interested.
What it has done in SA is create awareness that the F16 class exists, and that sailing 16ft cats with spinnakers is good fun and as inclusive as it can get, without having to live the "one-design dream".

What it has acchieved in Australia is that sailors like Gary Maskiell has been introduced to F16 through being a Mosquito sailor, and has built an amazing boat which is pretty much as fast as an F16 is going to get, without spending a fortune.

And so the class grows.

Steve

Thanks Steve. I had already re-read what it says on the F-16 web site and realized it apparently is referring to handicap racing.
And no, I was not referring to the Hooter. I was referring to all the older and smaller classes that could fit into the F-16 class either as is or with modifications. The litany of rules and measurements is very intimidating to me. It sounds like an attempt to create a one-design class that happens to allow various hull styles from various manufacturers. Maybe that is the intent.

But since you mention the Hooter, I am now curious as to what ISAF has to do with sail measurements. The Formula 16 class is not an ISAF class, is it? And neither is the Taipan 4.9. And the Portsmouth modification factor is the same for all large headsails -- spinnaker, genoa, gennaker, reacher, Hooter, etc. -- which indicates that the person doing the handicapping must think they are all equally beneficial.

Heck, if the reason for not allowing the Hooter instead of a spinnaker is fear that it will be used upwind in light air, why can't that just be made illegal to do when racing in class? And then supposedly it is a detriment, isn't it -- having all that windage wrapped around the stay?

My only personal interest in the Hooter is that I think it would make the F-16 class more appealing to women, older people and kids.

P.S. What did you mean about Rick proving something about the Hooter? He has only raced one time against other Formula 16's, and he can't even remember whether he used the spinnaker or the Hooter, but he didn't do very well, because it was two men on the boat and crew weight was over 400 lbs.

Hi Mary,

Fair point, on the surface it doesn't seem as though ISAF does a great deal, especially for grass-roots sailing and catamaran sailing. But among other things ISAF administers the Racing Rules of Sailing which governs almost every competitive sailing event (can't think of one that doesn't but I'm sure they exist) and whether we are an ISAF registerd/recognised/sanctioned/whatever class, we are racing governed by their rules - which include sail measurement and designation to my knowledge.

If that were true, no development or experimentation would be possible. A class can set whatever rules (or lack of them) it wants to regarding sails. If the class wants to approve a spinnaker that is shaped like an hourglass, so be it.

If a class decides to become an ISAF International or Recognized Class, then their class rules are kind of set in stone. If an ISAF class wants to make a change, they have to first vote on it as a class and then get approval from ISAF to make the change.

The RRS are the rules of racing, not of design and development.

If I am wrong about this, I will drop out of sailing and take up knitting.

You mean like one of those...um, formula classes?



Mark.

I guess I don't know what a formula class is. I always think of it as being very simplistic and allowing for great latitude in development and creativity, like with the Formula 14 Class. My idea of a formula class is maximum width, maximum length, maximum sail area, minimum boat weight.

As long as you stay within the sail area, why can't you have a biplane rig, a gaff rig, a lateen rig, a kite, or whatever? And why do you require the boat to have two rudders? If there were still any Dingos around, the F-16 rules would preclude it because it has one rudder in the center. There is an old design in Europe that does not have any rudders at all -- and they still race, the last I heard.

What is the point of a Formula class that is as restrictive as a one-design class?

Mary where were you when I was seeking a box rule development class as the F16 rules?

Unfortunately the only box rule classes I know of in cats are the original International classes A, B, C and D As well as the 18 Sq (I haven't read the F14 rules).

The reason the majority didnt go this rule route was, the idea we wanted to be able to sail at a similar rating as the F18s. Thus it was required to have a similar handicap using the major handicaping systems used currently. Seems the Texal system has a very convoluted way of "mathematically" assigning a rating to a boat. Anything outside of its simplistic ideology is heavily penalised.
For example of the "Hooter" would drop the F16 rating unrealisically low. So instead of racing a F18 boat for boat we would be starting almost with the new rigged Tornado.

Comparing Formula classes and one design.
Formula classes arent quite as restrictive as a one design. The Blade F18, Capricorn F18, Nacra F18 and the Tiger F18 are strickingly different designs.
Typically a one design has a series of measurement points along the hull and allow for builders errors only. They may have set point and measurements on the rigging and sails as well.
Then one has SMOD which require every hull to come from a mold or an exact copy of one mold. With every aspect of the oat strictly covered and generally supplied by the manufacturer.

Stewart

That might be true in Europe and anyplace that uses Texel, but it is not true in the United States where we use Portsmouth and the headsails are all rated equally.

And what difference does it make anyway? The rating is only important if you are racing on handicap, so if you are racing on handicap under the Texel system, why would you use a Hooter? You would use the spinnaker. Isn't it just a matter of common sense to use the sail that gives you the best rating?

And when racing within the Formula 16 class, you could use either sail, but with a rule that you cannot use a reacher-type sail upwind.

What is the problem with that? It would be no problem in the United States. In fact, it would be no problem anywhere as long as you are racing as a class, because ratings are not involved -- class rules prevail.

Mary here are the registered and incorporated class rules for the F14 in Australia (the International F14 catamaran association -I.F.C.A-)
The “Box rule” governing an F14 catamaran is
The craft must be a catamaran, having two identical hulls of equal volume, with the rudders attached at/to the transom/s, i.e. not extended out from the stern of the craft so as to effectively “extend” the waterline length of the hull/s.
1. Length Over All.
L.O.A. of the hulls (excluding only “T foils, rudders, all rudder fittings, and spinnaker pole with fittings) 14’ 1 1/4” 4.3 metres
2. Maximum Beam (Overall)
8’ 2 1/4” 2.46 metres
3. Mast Height
Mast height is unrestricted, although the mast can only form a percentage of the mainsail area of no more than 15%, albeit that the circumference of the mast shall not exceed 400mm, i.e. no “solid” wing mast/sail (articulated or not).
The sail(s) shall be of a single “laminate” fabric.
4. Maximum Sail Area
The sail(s), including half the area of the mast bounded by the luff length of the main sail without having any wrinkles or folds, shall not exceed 296 sq feet. 27.50 sqm
Albeit that the maximum allowable area of a spinnaker/reacher shall be no more than
148 sq feet 13.75 sqm
and the combined “working sail(s)” including half the area of the mast bounded by the luff length of the main sail shall not exceed 148 sq feet 13.75 sqm
The maximum total area includes the combination of the areas of ALL sails plus half the area of the mast bounded by the luff length of the main sail. The measurements of all the sails shall be by the calculation of the “actual” sail area.
5. Construction
Materials are unrestricted
6. Minimum Weight
All up sailing weight, excluding only the crew. 165.35 lb (imp) 75Kg
7. “T” foils
(As opposed to “hydrofoils”) used only for the stablelization of pitch, and only of a symmetrical profile, without having any adjustment to the angle of “attack” of the foils whilst sailing (i.e. not independent of the movement of the hulls), and only if attached to, or forming part of the rudders, or attached to the underside of the hull(s) within 300mm 0f the transom(s), are
allowed. No foil(s) shall protrude to any point wider than the maximum allowable beam of the class (i.e. 2.46 metres).
“Hydrofoils” that are used to “lift” the hull(s) due to the forward movement through the water of the catamaran, (i.e. these foils are of an asymmetric profile, designed to generate
upwards lift by the action of their movement through the water), are not allowed.
8. Built in buoyancy
Closed cell foam is required to be fixed internally in the hulls, sufficient to maintain the vessel, and its crew, in the upright position, with the hulls at, or above the surface of the water, when one or both hulls are completely full of water. (Safety rule)
9. Centre/Dagger boards, Rudders and Hulls.
The centre/dagger boards shall be set at 90 degrees side to side of the hulls (but not necessarily fore and aft) to a line projected across the catamaran between the centre of the centre/dagger board cases and only be movable in the vertical plane, either up and down in a straight line or “swung” aft and upwards as in pivoting centre boards I.E. sides way cantered or sides way outwardly raked foils are not allowed. The same applies to the rudders I.E. the rudders shall only be set vertical to the hull(s) and the hulls shall also, not be “angled”, but be parallel to each other in the vertical plane.
10. Number and weight of crew
Weight and number of crew is unrestricted, (with reference to “Crew and Crew Weight” in the preceding section of the class rules)
11. Spinnaker pole
Any spinnaker pole and/or fittings shall not protrude further forward of the forward most point of the bows (measured at 90 degrees from the centre of a line connecting the two most forward parts of the bows of each hull), by more than one metre.
12. From time to time
By an agreed vote by the executive of the F14 catamaran association, those catamarans that do not fit within the preceding “box rule” definitions (from item no 1. through to item 11. inclusive) may be allowed inclusion to sail/compete with and against all those catamarans that comply to the afore mentioned items, 1. through to and including item 11, by being afforded an appropriate handicap/rating, designed to keep all racing results fair and equitable between the different “classes” of catamarans so competing.

Sorry, Darryl, I was talking about the Formula 14 rules as I think they were approved in the United States (and they are probably not incorporated or registered).
FORMULA 14 CLASS RULES VOTE

1. Maximum Hull Length: 14’ 3”

2. Maximum Mast Length: 24’

3. Maximum Beam – Open

4. Maximum Sail Area – 300sqft in any configuration.

5. 1 or more Crew

6. Everything else open

(I'm not sure of the reason for #5 unless it is to prevent operating the boat by remote control.)

Mary,
In broard terms the objective of the Formula 16 class, as is also with the F18 class, is to provide a framework that will enable people to sail boats of similar performance but from different manufacturers.

When you look at the rules it does allow sail plans that differ. This is evident when you compare the sail plan of the Stealth and the Taipan or even the Blade. They are different but at the same time they have similarities.

If the sail plans were vastly different then the outcome of a race would be more likely decided by the sail plans versus conditions rather than skipper versus skipper.

Now if the rules were left more open than currently provided and enough people were willing to spend enough money over a long enough period of time experimenting with vastly different sail plans they are likely to end at a similar sail plan. Not the same but similar. This is essentially what has happened in the A class.

Would people enter the class knowing that the sail plan they buy is likely to be outdated half way thru the season?

Would the class survive that development?

The F16 class rules were written in a manner that we belived would give the F16 class the best possible chance to survive and prosper.
This was our hope.

Regards,
Phill

Mary.. Great point.. Now if you could convince the US sailing Admin to talk to the Aussie, South Africian and European admins to come up with a universal system I would appreciate it!..

Unfortunately each area and almost each country has its own "rating sytem" some are Portsmouth based other formulae based..

What difference does it make? I guess it all depends on numbers.. If there are the numbers to race as a fleet then no difference.. However if one, like I do, has to race in a mixed fleet the rating system is important..

Hi Mary,
"P.S. What did you mean about Rick proving something about the Hooter? He has only raced one time against other Formula 16's, and he can't even remember whether he used the spinnaker or the Hooter, but he didn't do very well, because it was two men on the boat and crew weight was over 400 lbs."
My apology, I understood from reading Rick`s reports on the Hooter when using it on the Wave that it can be used upwind in light airs, as well as his write-up on the Hooter on your web-page in which he describes it`s benefits. I don`t know if he`s used it with success on the Taipan, but if it works on other boats it should do the same. Others on the F14 forum have also claimed similar benefits of the Hooter.

"I was referring to all the older and smaller classes that could fit into the F-16 class either as is or with modifications. The litany of rules and measurements is very intimidating to me. It sounds like an attempt to create a one-design class that happens to allow various hull styles from various manufacturers. Maybe that is the intent."

I think that the aims of the F16 class are exactly opposite of what you have in mind : With the rules as they are, based largely on the F18 ruleset, a "class" has been created which should allow boats of very similar performance to sail against one another on an equal basis. This means the rules need to be quite tightly set up & controlled. I really admire those who say "give me an open formula boxrule class", I`d like to see boats develop this route, but I would never get involved due to the costs. It`s working for the US guys now because they`re all modifying old H14`s at low cost, but if someone built an all-carbon boat to the max. specs allowed in the boxrule, it would be lapping the H14`s on the first lap, and that is not fair racing. It then becomes an arms race, and F14 disappears as fast as it was born. This is not what the F16 group wants to happen. This is why carefully chosen rules that really affect performance have been implemented, and why the minimum tip weight rule is now under discussion.

Regarding the "one-design" feeling you get from the rules, this is not the case at all - you can enter a 14ft boat that fits into the boxrule and satisfies all other criteria if you believe it would be capable of winning.
In reality all competitive boats will have similar dimensions and even hull shapes, rig configurations etc, as these have been proven over time. Some new ideas that have been tested in other classes will find their way into F16 boats, and maybe some innovations will happen in the class and be used by other classes.

On the issue of being ISAF compliant, even if we`re not a registered class, we have been issued an ISAF SCHRS recognised handicap, allowing us to race worldwide against a large group of other cat classes on an internationally recognised and accepted handicapping system. As far as I`m aware, the US is practically the only country that is still hanging on to the type of system you have - perhaps you guys feel it`s a better system, and I`m not raising that issue here, all I`m saying is that there are benefits from an international sailing point of view that the US system cannot accommodate, and which ISAF covers easily.
Furthermore the F16 class is essentially made up of several classes that are ISAF recognised such as Spitfire, Stealth etc, and so their class rules include the mid-girth measurement for their spinnakers. Should F16 allow Hooters and these prove to be superior to spinnakers, the sailors of these classes would have to own (and replace from time to time) both types of headsails in order to sail both class legal events and F16 events. This would push the cost of sailing an F16 boat up, which is not the intention of the class.
The fact that the F16 class is an International class of like-minded sailors on 16ft boats means that sometimes we just aren`t going to do things the American way !!

Cheers
Steve

This is actually one reason why the F16 has the misgirth spi rule.

We didn't want to end up with multiple localized and incompatible F16 classes.

So in the very beginning, we (Kirt Simmons, Phill Brander, John Pierce and myself) looked for the setup that was acceptable to all regions and to all organisations and we went with that.

I think we really did good there as South Africa, Europe and Asia all use ISAF or Texel. And Europe includes the UK this time. Only USA and Aus use yardstick system but of a different kind. Neither system specified how to measure a sail or what a spinnaker of hooter is. ISAF or the other hand did and ISAF (+Texel) is also the organisation that trains and maintains measurers.

By linking ourselfs to ISAF regulations we didn't have a need to form, train and maintain a seperate group of regulations and measurers. Now we can make use of the existing structures formed for the F18, F20, A-cat and other classes.

Formula 16 will be the same the whole world over, no exceptions. If we ever are going to have international sailing in the F16 class than unity between local branches is an absolute requirement.

The other important reason is of course that everybody loves "wide open class rules" as a spectator and as a discussion topic but only 5% or less likes to sail under such rules. By going for a Formula setup over a "simple set of 4 or 5 limits" we are far more attractive to a larger portion of the sailing public and therefor have a greater potential.


Wouter

A few things to note


Sailing with a hooter type of headsail under BOTH texel AND ISAF would force us to sail of a rating that is faster than the M20 and that is also probably the fastest rating for cats under 22 feet. It is not only Texel who does this. It is the ISAF system as well. We are of course an international class and these things, however unfair, should be taken into account.

Further of the original open classes : A, B, C, D and 18 sq. NONE except the C-class exist in their orgininal form. A-cats have introduced extra rules limited foiling etc. And the B, D, 18 sq. classes are pretty much dead or never got of the ground. The C-class of course is way out of reach of normal sailors and currently only 4 boats in the whole world are in ready to sail condition. When we compare this to F18, F20, F16, F18HT and even the new F14 we see a clear trend. Both sailors and builders like freedom and they like to tinker with their boats as wel but they DON'T like wide open class rules.

The F16 class specified from the beginning that we wanted to be a regatta boat (= open class handicap racing everywhere except the US) and that she wanted to race first in wins with F18's on a fair basis. This meant that we had to be veru comparable in setup to the F18 setup to avoid being to different in performance to make racing unfair to either one of us. This together with the ISAF regulations lead to the inclusion of the mid grith spi rule.

In order of openess and allowing creativity the list is (going from restrictive to open)

-1- SMOD classes : H16, Dart 18, etc
-2- OD classes : Tornado, Taipan, etc
-3- Formula classes : F18, F20, F16, A-cats, etc
-4- Open classes : A-class (not the same as A-cats anmore !) , B-class, C-class, D-class and unlimited class.

Note how a design made within the old A-class box rule as specified by ISAF years ago may NOT be compliant with current A-cat class rules ! Arguable the A-cat class rules are still the most open of the formula class rules but they are more and more edging their way to a formula structure.

So the F16 class is pretty high on the list of allowing creativity and differences between designs. At least more so than SMOD and OD classes but also with respect to F18 and F20 classes which use more rules and restrict more. They even specify the minimum weight of daggerboards and such. Things the F16 class does not do.

Wouter

I can assure everybody that the reason for having the mid grith spi rule, that seems to exclude hooters, was not included to ban hooters. The banning of these is a (regretable ?) side-effect

The reason for its inclusion are unrelated to the hooter sail design; also I don't think any of us (Kirt, Phill, John and myself) would have included it if we weren't forced to do so by some important rating systems and our choice to level race F18's on a fair basis. The last class has this mid girth rule as well.

I just want to make this clear.

Wouter

Wouter,

I have not read the F16 rules, but I assume



I assume this rule puts a limit on the aspect ratio of the Spi ?

And what is the F16 Mid girth rule ? (sorry to ask you to re-produce something that is in the F16 rule book

Sorry Mary,

But ISAF indeed specifies things like how sails are to be measured and what must be included and what must not. Of course a class MAY choose to do it differently but then it needs to create and administer their own framework. That adds a whole lot of work to running a class AND thus put us in collision course with Race Committees and other classes at regatta's.

You are right, there is a rudderless catamaran in Europe that has a active class and hold class races. However I would like to see anyone get that boat a starting permit in any significant regatta like the Round Texel. The RC will just deny you one as they are unwilling to take the increased risk of being held responsible when things go wrong. And I can't blame them. How do you explain to a non-sailing judge that "the boat could safely navigate a distance race on the open sea with a very crowded 500 boats startline and WITHOUT rudders".

We must remember that political issues like that sometimes necessitate class rules that otherwise don't seem to have a reason for their inclusion. In some instances we had to include them or people in certain nations simply wouldn't want anything to do with the F16 class. Right now, they do.

Our goal in the F16 class is to sail and race no matter what happens. Show up at any event and sail, Crew calling off? you sail solo, Girlfriend wanted to come along you sail doublehanded, 5 knots or 25 knots, class or open class. That is why we focus on the 1-up/2-up versatility, garanteed seaworthyness and level racing with the biggest class around, the F18's. This directly lead to boats that weight 107 kg overall instead of 90 kg or 130 kg and this lead to rules with respect to mid girth width and having a (redundant) double rudder system.

Wouter

Section 7 ; article 23

7.23 Gennaker girth

The distance at mid-height, between the mid point of the gennaker luff and the mid point of the gennaker leech.

Also know as mid-girth rule after "MID height - GIRTH" rule


This measurement is then used in :

Section 1 ; paragraph 14 - article 3 (SMG - Mid hight Girth measurement)


1.14.3 The gennaker must satisfy the following two shape and size conditions :


SMG > 75% * SF

Gennaker sail area = SF * (SL1+SL2) / 4 + (SMG-SF/2) * (SL1+SL2) / 3 =< 17,50 sq. mtr.

Where :

* SMG is the width at mid-height, which shall be taken between the mid
point of the luff and the mid point of the leech.

* SF is the length of the foot of the sail measured around the edge of
the sail, between the lowest points of the luff and the leech ;

* SL1 is the length of the luff of the sail measured along the edge of
the sail, from the highest point of the sail, to the lowest point of the sail
on the luff ;

* SL2 is the length of the leech of the sail measured along the edge of
the sail, from the highest point of the sail, to the lowest point of the sail
on the leech.



It is not intended by any party to be a limit on the aspect ratio of the spi although it does limit it some as a side effect. The only intention of the mid-girth rule is to make a distinction between jibs (and addition headsail like boom jibs) and spinnakers. They are both triangular sails and are both ahead of the mast. However one can only be set on courses below a reach while the other can be set on all course. Somebody in the past decided that a mid height width measurement would be a good disciminator between the two types of headsails and used that to make up the definition of a spinnaker (gennaker)

We are still stuck with that definition.

By the way ; there is not a single beach catamaran class that allows anything else than 75 % mid girth spinnakers. Not the F18's, Not the F20, not the Tornado's, not the M20's, not the I-17's, not the FX-one's, not even the US nacra 6.0NE class that has no following outside of the US. The F16 class is not unique with regard to this mid girth rule.


Wouter

So would or would not my Hobie Wave with Hooter be allowed to race as a Formula 16?