Announcements
New Discussions
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
A simple proposal #4116
11/22/01 08:25 PM
11/22/01 08:25 PM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 48
Toronto
mhb Offline OP
newbie
mhb  Offline OP
newbie

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 48
Toronto
The purpose of the F20 class is to create fair and exiting racing.
<br>
<br>What if staying with a class LOA of 20 feet we could use a formula (maybe the Texel rating system) that would allow us to vary parameters but always resulting in the same rating.
<br>
<br>Could be a lot of fun !
<br>
<br>The 12 Metre campain went on for a long time.
<br>
<br>:-)
<br>marc...
<br><br><br>

--Advertisement--
Re: A simple proposal [Re: mhb] #4117
11/22/01 08:29 PM
11/22/01 08:29 PM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 48
Toronto
mhb Offline OP
newbie
mhb  Offline OP
newbie

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 48
Toronto
woops that's EXCITING not exiting racing<br><br>

I would at least give you a better ... [Re: mhb] #4118
11/23/01 06:43 AM
11/23/01 06:43 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
I would at least give you a better relationship between sailarea and weight than what the unscientifically proposed scale now.
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

Attached Files
4128- (182 downloads)

Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: one design vs developement [Re: mhb] #4119
11/23/01 01:52 PM
11/23/01 01:52 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
sail6000 Offline
old hand
sail6000  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
Hi Marc and Wout -
<br>
<br> Maurizzio on the open forum added a good post on weight ,-costs etc , quotting Dick Newick ,-noted designer of a great many cats and tris.
<br>
<br>-A developemental class would allow a basic rating formula , I-thought the weight to sail area was best . -but --
<br> Not many I am discovering are really interested in this type of developement sailing -racing .
<br> More I am being told will be much more interested and understand one design iF TYPE of rules .
<br>
<br> The interesting twist in devising a developement type rule that would fit N A 20s was to scale existing heavier older active 20 cat designs a larger proportional sail area insuring that they would be competitive , particularly in light air . This would keep them active and already completely qualified to race in F-20 .
<br> The key for newer lighter developement cat designs with smaller porportional sail areas , would be to use that sail area more effectively , --maybe tapered masts would have to be allowed to allow this to develope.
<br> Historically the problem with design developement rules is they create {rule beaters } -extreme designs with unfavorable sailing charicteristics . --
<br> This rule would guide new cat designs towards lighter safer more sail effecient craft being produced.
<br>
<br>-Wout ,-your comment was {unscientific } but if you examine the scale the Tornado 8.5 beam fits into the center using its basic existing sail area . {the T-is used as a benchmark in rating systems . } --The Inter 20 could be sailed as is , and add a larger 2nd chute , --The N 6/0 the same - some would need upgrades in sail area to be competitive at the top level .
<br>--The lightweight version was under existing iF 20S in sail area but 100 LB lighter .
<br> -One thing to mention about Texel and ISAF is that they attempt to rate ALL cats , includind ones with slow features such as low aspect sails ,-skegs , no boards ,ect. where a racing class does not have to concern itself with this aspect , --In this class we have L and B defined , weight and sail area would be the variables , and other aspects are up to the designer and sailor .
<br> Wout if you have run through the Texel numbers at the low and high end of the scale you have pronounced [UNSCIENTIFIC } COULD YOU POST THE RATING NUMBER FOR THEM .,-low middle and top end .
<br>
<br> Again they are a proposed scale that included all existing active racing 20 s in NA basically as they are . and would expect some refinement to be required before finalizing it .
<br>
<br> Thanks
<br> Carl<br><br>

Attached Files
4145- (190 downloads)
Re: one design vs developement [Re: sail6000] #4120
11/23/01 07:30 PM
11/23/01 07:30 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Carl,
<br>
<br>-A developemental class would allow a basic rating formula , I-thought the weight to sail area was best . -but --
<br>Not many I am discovering are really interested in this type of developement sailing -racing .
<br>More I am being told will be much more interested and understand one design iF TYPE of rules .
<br>
<br>(Wouter) I expected as much, as a result of my F16 experiences. Now Sailarea to weight was a good starting point Carl, but your approach lacked simplicity and sophistications. Simplicity to be easily explained to others and Sophistication that would convince everyone that your approach would indeed produce equality between designs.
<br>
<br>Honestly Carl, you even lost me on your weight/sailarea scale and I very much doubted if it would really produce equality. The fact that F16 HP produces equal performance ratios to F18 was due to a special Physical / mathematical coincidence that only worked when the F16 HP was around 100 kg's. A slighting scale which was still producing equality over a wider range like you proposed was alot more ambitious.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>The interesting twist in devising a developement type rule that would fit N A 20s was to scale existing heavier older active 20 cat designs a larger proportional sail area insuring that they would be competitive , particularly in light air.
<br>
<br>This approach is difficult to say the least and juist setting a overal sailarea limit was to crude to do this I'm afright. Area in the mainsail has a far bigger impact than the same area in a genaker. You did not take this into account. You also set all limits past the iF20 and most older designs were already having trouble achieving iF20 performance. However I still believe that N6.0, H20, P19 and Mystere can be made eqaul to the iF20 performance within a acceptable margin and against acceptable cost. With this in mind iF20 is the best compromise between old and new (US i-20's)
<br>
<br>
<br>>>This would keep them active and already completely qualified to race in F-20 .
<br>
<br>(wouter) Qualified ? yes, equal ? probably not.
<br>
<br>>>Historically the problem with design developement rules is they create {rule beaters } -extreme designs with unfavorable sailing charicteristics . --
<br>
<br>(Wouter) No the problem is mostly that the fear of such a thing happening is keeping sailors from joining and participating in these classes. Without participation you're dead. No make it a two step approach first create a class and then after several years you may adjust certain parameter WHEN sailors feel a need for it. That is the way the Tornado class did it.
<br>
<br>
<br>-Wout ,-your comment was {unscientific } but if you examine the scale the Tornado 8.5 beam fits into the center using its basic existing sail area . {the T-is used as a benchmark in rating systems . } --The Inter 20 could be sailed as is , and add a larger 2nd chute , --The N 6/0 the same - some would need upgrades in sail area to be competitive at the top level .
<br>--The lightweight version was under existing iF 20S in sail area but 100 LB lighter .
<br>
<br>
<br>(wouter) The last would be a monster to sail Carl. I mean same width more sailarea less righting moment. The US I-20 is already overpowered in anything more than a breeze. And the 20 ft. length would hold it back due to ineffect wetted surface to weight ratio. Optimation is not that simple.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>-One thing to mention about Texel and ISAF is that they attempt to rate ALL cats , includind ones with slow features such as low aspect sails ,-skegs , no boards ,ect. where a racing class does not have to concern itself with this aspect , --In this class we have L and B defined , weight and sail area would be the variables , and other aspects are up to the designer and sailor .
<br>
<br>(Wouter) Yes but under these L and B limits reducing weight and adding sailarea are in conflict with respect to controlabilty and therefor performance.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Wout if you have run through the Texel numbers at the low and high end of the scale you have pronounced [UNSCIENTIFIC } COULD YOU POST THE RATING NUMBER FOR THEM .,-low middle and top end .
<br>
<br>(Wouter) No I haven't run through the calculators, you can do it yourself however. I made my remark based on other aspects.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Again they are a proposed scale that included all existing active racing 20 s in NA basically as they are . and would expect some refinement to be required before finalizing it .
<br>
<br>(wouter) Including them by widening the rules does not make them equal.
<br>
<br>Regards,
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br><br><br>

Attached Files
4158- (196 downloads)

Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: I would at least give you a better ... [Re: Wouter] #4121
11/23/01 11:16 PM
11/23/01 11:16 PM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 48
Toronto
mhb Offline OP
newbie
mhb  Offline OP
newbie

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 48
Toronto
Wouter,
<br>Are you saying the Texel rating is unscientific ?
<br><br><br>

Certainly not. [Re: mhb] #4122
11/24/01 07:57 AM
11/24/01 07:57 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Well, what can I say that hasn't been said many times before. "It is all in balance" and without truelly analysing this balance you might convince yourself that something will work when in reality it won't.
<br>
<br>I will give you the best example I have (and than I will not comment on this anymore) :
<br>
<br>Forgive me from ALSO using F16 in this example.
<br>(formula's used are explained on the F16 page)
<br>
<br>Three boats.
<br>
<br>iF20 Inter 20 weight 190 kg's length 6.1 mtr. width 2,6 mtr.
<br>Marstrom 20 weight 105 kg's length 6,1 ,tr. width 2,6 mtr.
<br>Formula 16 HP weight 100 kg's length 5 mtr. width 2.5 mtr.
<br>
<br>all boats sailed with crew weights of 150 kg's
<br>
<br>I would like to underline here that F16 is 2,5 mtr. INSTEADof 2,6 because we had to scale it down to full F18 equality and 2,6 mtr width would not produce that, 2,5 mtr did.
<br>
<br>now lets approximately calculate wetted surface area's relative to F16
<br>
<br>iF20 / F16 = sq. rt. (weight iF20/F16 * Length iF20/F16) = 190 sq. rt. ((190+150/100+150) * (6,1/5)) = sq rt. (1,36 * 1,22) = sq. rt. (1,66) = 129 %
<br>
<br>M20 / F16 = sq. rt. (1,02 * 1,22) = sq. rt (1,244) = 112 %
<br>
<br>F16 / F16 = 100 % ofcourse
<br>
<br>Prismatic drag ratios :
<br>
<br>iF20 / F16 = Weight / length = 55,7 / 50 = 111 %
<br>M20 / F16 = 84 %
<br>F16 / F16 = 100 %
<br>
<br>High speed drag estimate (Combined wetted and prismatic drag) :
<br>
<br>est iF20 / F16 = (129 % + 111%)/ 2 = 120 %
<br>est M20 / F16 = (112 % + 84%) / 2 = 98 %
<br>est F16 / F16 = 100 % by definition ofcourse
<br>
<br>Lets calculate righting moments (leverage crew is width + 1 mtr. becuase ther is the centre of mass to be found, at the navel)
<br>
<br>iF20 = 150 *(2,6 +1) + 190 * 0.5 * 2,6 = 540 + 247 = 787 kgm
<br>M20 = 150 *(2,6+1) +105 * 0,5 * 2,6 = 540 + 136,5 = 677 kgm
<br>F16 = 150 *(2,5+1) + 100 * 0,5 * 2,5 = 525 + 125 = 650 kgm
<br>
<br>Now lets calculate rigjting ratios :
<br>
<br>iF20 / F16 = 121 % , remember wetted surface ratio 129 %
<br>M20 / F16 = 104 % , remember wetted surface ratio 112 %
<br>F16 / F16 = 100 % , remember wetted surface ratio 100 %
<br>
<br>Now is there any doubt which boat has a better wetted surface area to righting moment ratio ? Righting moment determines the maximum size of rig a platform can handle with respect to capsize. Obviously the F16 can carry the biggest rig relatively to it's drag. In absolute sense it will be smaller ofcourse. That is the twist.
<br>
<br>.
<br>This means one thing in order to keep up in the light air both the M20 and iF20 need to have more sailarea and probably higher masts. This can be done, no problem, but in medium air they will start to suffer as a result and in heavy air they suffer inmensely, F18 and all older boats will start passing these 20 footers and the iF20 will pass the M20.
<br>
<br>Now lets compare sailarea's and see if both iF20 and M20 do add these amounts of sailarea.
<br>
<br>iF20 18 sq mtr main, 4,85 jib 25 sq. mtr. genaker
<br>US I-20 19,4 sq. mtr. 4,85 jib 25 sq. mtr. gen.
<br>M20 19 sq. mtr. 0,00 jib 20 sq. mtr. gen.
<br>F16 14,75 sq. mtr. 3,5 jib 17,5 sq. mtr. gen.
<br>
<br>I would like to remind people that both the jib and genaker were sized down the F16 group to slow down the F16 HP to the F18 performance and to allow single handed sailing with the same genaker. There are NO technical reasons why the F16 can't fly a 4,5 a sq. mtr. jib and a 21 sq. mtr genaker as both width and Texel / ISAF allow.
<br>
<br>Mainsails
<br>
<br>iF20 / F16 = 122 %, remember wetted surface ratio 129 %
<br>US I-20 / F16 = 131 %, remember wetted surface ratio 129 %
<br>M20 / F16 = 128 %, remember wetted surface ratio 112 %
<br>F16 / F16 = 100 %
<br>
<br>Genakers ;
<br>
<br>iF20 / F16 = 143 %, remember wetted surface ratio 129 %
<br>US I-20 / F16 = 143 %, remember wetted surface ratio 129 %
<br>(***iF20 / F16 big rig = 119 %***)
<br>M20 / F16 = 128 %, remember wetted surface ratio 112%
<br>F16 / F16 = 100 %
<br>
<br>Jibs :
<br>
<br>iF20 / F16 = 139 %
<br>US I-20 / F16 = 139 %
<br>(***iF20 / F16 big rig = 108 %***)
<br>M20 / F16 = 0 %
<br>F16 / F16 = 100 %
<br>
<br>Now with respect to the mainsail area both the iF20 and US I-20 have just enough area to not be blown away by the F16. The US I-20 has only 2 % more which is hardly noticable on the course. With 2 % speed difference it will take an US I-20 about 2 minutes to overtake a F16 when sailing at 10 knots. That is creeping past.
<br>
<br>It is the genaker area which will be factor that will put the Inter 20's / iF20 past the F16's, but any F16 sailor sailing any kite largere than 19 sq.mtr will regain the advantage. Same applies for the jibs of 3,75 sq. mtr or more . And coincidence has it that the both these measurements are proposed as the heavy crew sailsizes within the F16 rule.
<br>
<br>Now, what more can we conclude from these numbers ?
<br>
<br>But the real twist comes now. The pride of 20 foot designs !!! The M20 is even worse of than the iF20 is ! Only 4 % more righting moment but no less than 12 % more wetted surface drag ! the negatieve effect outweights the positive one by a factor of 3. iF20 does better, 21 % positive effect 29 % negative effect. The M20 high speed drag estimate is nearly equal to F16's drag ratio that DESPITE the fact that it has longer hulls !! And this is the real twist. The M20 platform is in drag relation harly distingiousable from the F16. The only reason that it is faster in light air is that it just has more sail area in the mainsail. Overall the difference is smaller. And ofcourse with only 104 % of righting moment and 128 % sail increasewith even more capszing moment increase due to a higher mast the M20 will be so heavily punished in NON-light windforces that it is not funny anymore.
<br>
<br>Main point : the M20 is completely out of balance. It does have enough sailarea to overcome it;s wetted surface area of 112 % but at only a 104 % increase in righting moment it will be a BIG looser in anything than light air. In medium and heavy air it will be completely overpowered. And ofcourse it lack a jib alltogether and this will go a long way in correcting the actual performance of both the F20 and F16 classes upward with respectto the M20. So if any of you want to device a US F-20 that will develop into this than I say it is a BIG waste of money. Who wants a boat of USD 20.000 that is beaten in 50 % of the US regatta's and 75 % of the EU regatta's by a USD 9.000 boat.
<br>
<br>Ohh I nearly forgot. the Worrell is a heavy air race right ? Anyone wants to sail the M20 against John on his F16 with 20 sq.mtr spi in this race ? No disrespect intended.
<br>
<br>In all honesty even the US I-20 would do better in this race against the M20 And the IF20 would do better than the US I-20.
<br>
<br>There are some other things that can be concluded from these numbers but the main point is that it is by no means easy to device a development rule that would really improve performance. Most of the time it would just give the impression of doing so.
<br>
<br>No at the end of this I would like to underline that John P. on the old stealth (pre F16) has beaten many 20 footers on elapsed time during the season 2001 and even finished a mere 8 minutes behind a well sailed Tornado Sport in a 6,5 hour race. In NL geert beat 2/3 of a fleet of 57 F18's on a pre F-16 Taipan 4.9 (small spi)
<br>
<br>No I appologie sfor using the F16 in this example, for it is really not about the F16 class but more about optimal designing and striking the right balance. And I offer these numbers as a counter argument against the impression that it is easy to optimize 20 ft. boats to even higher performances. And the comparison to the F16 was the best I had to show this and it is currently being confirmed in real life. A thing that can not be said about the CFR 20 and M20.
<br>
<br>So please bear with me though this F16 crap and focus on the points that have been explained here.
<br>
<br>And that is all will say about this now and in the future, It is up to you guys now.
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

Attached Files
4173- (186 downloads)

Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Ohh and making M20 3 mtr. wide only adds 4 % right [Re: Wouter] #4123
11/24/01 08:06 AM
11/24/01 08:06 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Ohh and making M20 3 mtr. wide only adds a mere 4 % righting moment relative to what is had at 2,6 mtr. wide.
<br>
<br>trying to increase righting moment of the M20 by 20 % results in a overall width of 3,3 mtr. Trailoring this baby will be fun ! Or oen has to be content with 0,7 mtr. wings on each side. Tiller rod will be about 3,5 mtr. long, now try to get that around the mainsheet blocks in a hurry. You will probably have two tillers than like the skiffs.
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

Attached Files
4174- (184 downloads)

Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: Certainly not. [Re: Wouter] #4124
11/24/01 08:18 AM
11/24/01 08:18 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 195
Texas
majsteve Offline
member
majsteve  Offline
member

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 195
Texas
Wouter
<br>
<br>I will look beyond the F16 drum beating like you asked. Well after this question. What happens when you increase the crew weight to 160 kgs on your beloved 16 foot boat? Compare this to the 20footers.
<br>
<br>You are coorect that the F16 is exciting and fast -- for a certain type/size of crew. In its niche the F16 should kick butt! However, a 16 footer will never beat a F20 head to head no time correction. WHY?
<br>
<br>Leave the classes to body types, sailing styles and desires.
<br>
<br>F16 has a niche -- find it and stay there
<br>F18 has a niche -- find it and stay there
<br>NAF 20 has its place and we are going to exploit it.
<br>
<br>It would be better if the Formula classes got together and worked under one sanctioning body here in the US. So that we could market under a "open arms all welcome" package rather than fight for the same masses like the manufacturers have been doing. The formula classes must draw well defined lines and agree to work in their own defined areas.
<br>
<br>Basically, this:
<br>
<br>F16 is for the under 305 lbs crowd (husband and wife)
<br>F18 is for the 305-350 crowd (husband and wife)
<br>NA F20 is for the correctible to 350 and over crowd -- who is basically alittle nuts and are hooked on adrenaline.
<br>
<br>NA F20 raises the bar to a pont where other sailors can compete from other types of sailing. Is designed to be exciting, harder to control, and takes a qualified sailor to push it. It is part formula, part developmental, part cheap, and part expensive.
<br>
<br>Wouter, have you ever sailed in the US? It is a whole lot different over here than in Europe.
<br>
<br>Steve<br><br>

Attached Files
4175- (189 downloads)
Re: Certainly not. [Re: majsteve] #4125
11/24/01 09:59 AM
11/24/01 09:59 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Hello Steve,
<br>
<br>
<br>>>I will look beyond the F16 drum beating like you asked.
<br>
<br>Thank you. I really didn't want to name it on this F20 forum for obvious reasons, but I had no other means to explain my point of balance. But hey did you see my progress I also inculded the M20 !!! (Joke)
<br>
<br>>>Well after this question. What happens when you increase the crew weight to 160 kgs on your beloved 16 foot boat? Compare this to the 20footers.
<br>
<br>Well, I don't to discuss F16 to F20 any further for I believe this will distract from the points I was trying to explain. I very much, like yourself, believe that F16 has a different niche then the F20 and that we're not competing for the same group of sailors.
<br>
<br>(But I answer very briefly iF20 at 160 kg's / F16 at 160 kg's wetted surface ratio = 128 % = 1 % less than before, prismatic drag = 110% = 1 % less than before, High speed drag = 119 % = 1 % less than before. Righting moments ratio = 120 % = 1 % less than before. A small impact for a 10 kg's weight difference.)
<br>
<br>
<br>>>You are coorect that the F16 is exciting and fast --
<br>
<br>That was NOT my main point Steve. My point was that going from a Inter 20 to a M20 might not improof performance at all (medium air), sometime make it worse (heavy air) and only in a very small range (light air) make it a better. And even this better may be less than what was hoped for when looking at the costs.
<br>
<br>F16 was only there to show that a a brute force methode like that can well be far less effective than a balanced low tech approach. If I could have shown this with a H16 I would have chosen that design in my example.
<br>
<br>>>> In its niche the F16 should kick butt! However, a 16 footer will never beat a F20 head to head no time correction. WHY?
<br>
<br>
<br>What can I say ? well, just that one should never say never in this respect, especially and repeately so since spring 2001. (Start UK UKcra championship). I myself do not consider the class to be consistant F20 beater.
<br>
<br>>>Leave the classes to body types, sailing styles and desires.
<br>
<br>F16 has a niche -- find it and stay there
<br>F18 has a niche -- find it and stay there
<br>NAF 20 has its place and we are going to exploit it.
<br>
<br>
<br>(wouter) I fully agree to this. I only wanted to show using concrete arguments that you should be carefull in which way you force the development. Otherwise you may end up mainly a development in price that is not followed by a proportional performance increase. Again I say that F16 was the tool used to show this and certainly not the goal itself.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>It would be better if the Formula classes got together and worked under one sanctioning body here in the US. So that we could market under a "open arms all welcome" package rather than fight for the same masses like the manufacturers have been doing. The formula classes must draw well defined lines and agree to work in their own defined areas.
<br>
<br>
<br>Indeed, and this has been our intend from the start. The proposal to organise a formula regatta together was a result of this. We're going to race at lake Hartwell this spring 2002, wanna come ?
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Wouter, have you ever sailed in the US? It is a whole lot different over here than in Europe.
<br>
<br>Yes, I imagine.
<br>
<br>Well, I really think I should shut up now. I've already said to many things again that make me needlessly unpopular. I wish you all the luck and succes and hope to meet you in the NAMSA organisation as a brother formual class or even at the first formula race/regatta in the US if the class is ready by that time.
<br>
<br>Good luck to you all,
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br>
<br>Steve
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br><br>

Attached Files
4179- (189 downloads)

Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: Certainly not. [Re: Wouter] #4126
11/24/01 11:56 AM
11/24/01 11:56 AM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
sail6000 Offline
old hand
sail6000  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
Hi Steve and wOUT
<br>
<br>-On the niche issue --
<br> Most in the U S are not interested in 16s , --The formula 16 class may have some appeal to singlehanders , but there are already active I-17 and the new H-17 classes with excellent class racing in N A , and numerous A-Class cats with better sail area to weight ratios -{faster with more L }- that racing sailors can add a chute to for open or distance racing ,-. All these cats have-very similar wetted surface areas -{mainly a factor in light air =drag } -.
<br>
<br>-The appeal of larger cats is total speed . Reading the GPS often times distance racing in races like the Worrell we will hit speeds in the upper 20s , sometimes faster when surfing down the backs of larger ocean waves.-20 ft cats also have the length to prevent the dreaded pitchpole as your bows dive into the wave ahead . It is what cat sailing is about , -the joy of trapping off the back , strapped in , chute up , flying off the tops of huge waves , screaming along ,GPS PEGGED IN THE 25 RANGE , and faster ,---especially exciting at night ,--
<br>
<br>-A-16 is not capable of achieving these speeds and has the pitchpole problem , --Length is a part of the total formula in achieving speed , as the Playstation {LENGTHENED FROM 110-to achieve more }, and Club Med designers will tell you . This seems to be left out of discussion in above posts. -
<br>
<br>-Only quoting wetted surface area is very misleading , -trying to sell the 16s in N A is going to be very difficult .
<br> One positive aspect is the light weight , -
<br> I could see racing a 16 singlehanded , but not with another crew of any size or carrying added gear {-flares food water-GPS cell phone ,-jackets ,flashlights ,tools spare parts etc , required for distance racing ,
<br>
<br>-Wout -for you to pretent you have all the answers , and throw out a list of partial statistics that lead you to false conclutions is silly .
<br>
<br>-This is the Formula 20 forum , we are proposing concepts and options , ---As stated the preliminarily proposed sail area to weight formula option was provided for general discussion in preliminary form that included all active racing 20 ft cats ,--placed the 8.5 B Tornado in the center , and allows new LIGHTWEIGHT cats to be developed and raced. These LIGHTWEIGHT 20s would have great appeal to a great many racing sailors and help insure the future of the class .
<br>-
<br> We have been handed a very difficult task , we have existing active racing 20s with weights and sail areas and speed differences that are all over the board , we have variables in the new supposed F-20 S of mainsail area and weight . --Is this UNSCIENTIFIC ,--HELL YES. is this our doing , HELL NO ---moronic comments aimed AND INSINUATING THIS ARE JUST THAT .--these types of deconstuctive opinions accompanied by partial misguided equation do not help , just as pointing out the inadiquasies of 16s is not helpfull .
<br> -The intent of proposing this sail area to weight scale if any read the original post was to demonstrate how easily this can be accomplished .
<br> Is this the best theoretical solution to the goal of including existing active 20 ft cats in N A and allowing new lighter higher top speed cats to be developed ,--YES -
<br> Do I have all the answers , no ,-nor all the skills to refine it correctly ,-that's why I,m here seeking others expert advice ,-
<br> nor do I have all the skills to promote and market the class , -
<br> That is why we are all here to constructively seek and find solutions with the intent of collectively forming a N A Formula 20 Class .
<br>
<br> All the best
<br> Carl
<br>
<br> <br><br>

Attached Files
4181- (183 downloads)
Re: Certainly not. [Re: sail6000] #4127
11/24/01 04:31 PM
11/24/01 04:31 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
I think it is time for me to leave this forum. We are obviously not on the same wave length and it is better that I leave and let the rest return that you need to build this US 20ft class.
<br>
<br>But let me just have my farewell speech, I will use it to show that I'm not taking nonsense here and that I gave you all good info. Based on real life experiences and I'm sure you'll recognize the names of the authors and consider them trustworthy :
<br>
<br>
<br>Report from Mike F. found on www.catsailor.com general forum
<br>
<br>(quote)
<br>
<br>Subject Watched Taipan 4.9 beat Nacra 6.0
<br>
<br>Hi Wouter, A couple years ago here, I watched while Jim and Julie Boyer sailed boat for boat against well sailed 20 footers and finished first about half the races, all racing jib and main except for the Inter 20 which was not well sailed as it was new. Then in the Key Largo Steeplechase a couple years ago on the second day on what was mostly a close jib reach, I watched a well sailed Taipan 4.9 sail past many well sailed twenty AND twenty-two footers, including Randy and Cam on the new CFR 20. It was amazing! I was on my ten foot beam Mystere 6.0 flying a hull while trapped out with a heavier crew and they sailed past us through our lee!!! I was (and still am) impressed! As I wrote before, it is an impressively low-drag design, both aerodynamically and hydrodynamically.
<br>
<br>Mystere 6.0. , Mystere 4.3 , 2 Hobie Waves
<br>
<br>(End Quote)
<br>
<br>*************** Second quote *******************
<br>
<br>
<br>Report from Rick W. from www.catsailor.com general forum
<br>
<br>(quote)
<br>
<br>By the way, I have had a lot of fun with the very lightweight Taipan 4.9 as a unirig and with rollerfurling Hooter -- in around the buoys races I have been right behind the A-Class boats (good sailors, by the way), at the weather mark, and then smoke them off the wind.
<br>Downwind in a recent distance race (long 10-mile downwind first leg) I was right behind the Inter 20s and Nacras w/spin at the first mark (about 10 miles), and was ahead of all the 20' sloop boats (H20, Tornado, etc), and lost most of them on the upwind leg, finishing right with the H20s. On the upwind I did have some problems that kept me from doing better. There was a lot of kelp and I had to literally stop all the time to raise boards, rudders and then continue (problem with single-handing). And I am not as agile as I was now that I am 65 and overweight. I was really getting exhausted going in and out of the trapeze a zillion times. It was grim!
<br>The Hooter is really fast off the wind, escpecially for lighter boats that do not require big shoulders for power. And it furls within two boat lengths.
<br>
<br>Just food for thought
<br>Rick
<br>
<br>Rick White
<br>Catamaran Sailor Magazine
<br>
<br>(End Quote)
<br>
<br>
<br>**********Quote 3 **********************
<br>
<br>Report from a UK sailing mag.
<br>
<br>Sailing a Stealth R, John Pierce, crewed by Sue Davies made all the right bets to take his second win in the four race series. This race is now a well-established event run to raise money for the Ciaran Trust.
<br>....
<br>As the fleet tacked together back up the middle of the Blackwater with the growing tide it was near to impossible for the 20 foot Hurricane's and F 20 to shake off the shorter F 18 class. The mere 16 foot Spitfires performed spectacularly to take three of the top seven slots on handicap, while Alan Grace managed 11th place despite his handicaps.
<br>...
<br>
<br>
<br>1- Storm Big rig 6 : 12 : 12
<br>2- Int. Tornado (+spi) 6 : 38 : 42
<br>3- Inter 20 6 : 44 : 32
<br>4- F20 6 : 45 : 28
<br>5- Hurricane 5.9 6 : 45 : 30
<br>6- Stealth R 6 : 46 : 06
<br>7- Mystere F18 6 : 52 : 46
<br>8- Hurricane 5.9 spec 6 : 54 : 41
<br>9- the rest ....
<br>
<br>A total of 5 F20' s and 4 F18's participated with bigger numbers of Hurricanes 5.9 , nacra 6.0 etc
<br>
<br>Notice that 3 F20's and ALL F18's finish behind the (pre F16) Stealth in light winds ranging from 1 to 3 beaufort (7 to 12 knots) and that only 1 and a halve minutes in 6,5 hours was left between the first F20 and the Stealth.
<br>
<br>*************************************************************
<br>
<br>Dismiss all you want, the numbers don't lie and nor do these experiences.
<br>
<br>Now let me react to your comments and I hope you see that I'm really helping you here ! It is absolutely not my intention to pus F16 on this forum just to show the pitfalls that you need to deal with in a development 20 ft class.
<br>
<br>
<br>-On the niche issue --
<br>>>Most in the U S are not interested in 16s , --The formula 16 class may have some appeal to singlehanders , but there are already active I-17 and the new H-17 classes .....
<br>
<br>
<br>(wouter) F16 is a nice toy for kids, but not for real men, I understand. I'll remember that for future reference.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>>The appeal of larger cats is total speed . Reading the GPS often times distance racing in races like the Worrell we will hit speeds in the upper 20s , sometimes faster when surfing down the backs of larger ocean waves.-20 ft cats also have the length to prevent the dreaded pitchpole as your bows dive into the wave ahead .
<br>
<br>
<br>(wouter) Help me to remember to tell the F18 guys that when they pass F20's in a blow. Been there, seen it happen. During Dutch open Hobie nationals Tigers and FOX classes finished among eachotherwith only seconds between them. That is on elapsed time not corrected. The F20 guys started to complain with the race committee (also to me, cos I was in it) that the races should be cancelled because they were surviving outthere. Needless to say what the expressions were on the faces of the Tiger crews.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>>A-16 is not capable of achieving these speeds and has the pitchpole problem , --Length is a part of the total formula in achieving speed,
<br>
<br>
<br>(wouter) In that case all those F18 crews and I had a collective dream. It was a nice dream though. And Mik fahle must have had the same dream when he was passed by a T4.9 when was trapping out on a 10 ft. wide Mystere 6.0
<br>
<br>
<br>>> as the Playstation {LENGTHENED FROM 110-to achieve more }, and Club Med designers will tell you . This seems to be left out of discussion in above posts. -
<br>
<br>Actually it wasn't left out of my post. It was the core around which the hole of my former thread revolved. The facts that length can be beneficial is alot of cases but not in all cases. You missed that.
<br>
<br>
<br>-Only quoting wetted surface area is very misleading , -trying to sell the 16s in N A is going to be very difficult .
<br>
<br>
<br>(wouter) I qouted prismatic drag and high speed drag (50% wetted surface drag and 50 % prismatic drag) in my last post. How can you have missed it ?
<br>
<br>
<br>>>One positive aspect is the light weight , -
<br>
<br>(wouter) One aspect ? It is the only aspect aspect ! The whole setup revolves around it. It is THE trick to make a smaller platform excell it's 16 ft. performance. Never mind, I gave you good info, do with it what you want.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>I could see racing a 16 singlehanded , but not with another crew of any size or carrying added gear ....
<br>
<br>
<br>(wouter) Okay, I will tell John and Sue (2001 UK distance race champions) that they will need to look for a different boat because the US F20 class is convinced that their achievement (beating 18 and 20 ft. boats on elapsed time while doing it) was just a freak occurence that miraculously happend in four different races in as many different months.
<br>
<br>I mean, Carl, how can you say that when REAL life results are staring in the face ! How, on earth, do you explain these results. How do you explain that Geert beat 39 out 57 F-18's on elapsed only two months ago in a 3 hour distance race ? It is EXACTLY what the F16 was designed to do and results are proving it. Wnat to check ! go to www.hellecat.nl and look for Ronde Tiengemeente.
<br>
<br>I can't believe this !
<br>
<br>I do believe however that it is really time for me to leave.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>>-Wout -for you to pretent you have all the answers , and throw out a list of partial statistics that lead you to false conclutions is silly .
<br>
<br>(wouter) Thanks for the complement Carl.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>>.... weight . --Is this UNSCIENTIFIC ,--HELL YES. is this our doing , HELL NO ---moronic comments aimed AND INSINUATING THIS ARE JUST THAT .--these types of deconstuctive opinions accompanied by partial misguided equation do not help , just as pointing out the inadiquasies of 16s is not helpfull .
<br>
<br>(wouter) .... ... ... give somebody good info, give him the data and calculations too, refer to results achieved under real race conditions and there will be somebody calling it :"deconstuctive opinions accompanied by partial misguided equations"
<br>
<br>Allright Carl, proof me wrong. I will promise to sit back and wait and keep an open mind.
<br>
<br>
<br>-The intent of proposing this sail area to weight scale if any read the original post was to demonstrate how easily this can be accomplished .
<br>
<br>(wouter) I know, and I pointed out that the measure of ease in accomplishing this has no relation to achieving equality in performance.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Is this the best theoretical solution to the goal of including existing active 20 ft cats in N A and allowing new lighter higher top speed cats to be developed ,--YES -
<br>
<br>
<br>(wouter) No, and I've given you the reasons why. Did you read Mike Fahles quote where he stated that T4.9 sailed passed neraly all 20 ft designs including a CFR 20 ?
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Do I have all the answers , no ,-nor all the skills to refine it correctly ,-that's why I,m here seeking others expert advice ,-
<br>(wouter)No comment on this.
<br>
<br>>>>nor do I have all the skills to promote and market the class , -
<br>That is why we are all here to constructively seek and find solutions with the intent of collectively forming a N A Formula 20 Class .
<br>
<br>(wouter) no comment here too.
<br>
<br>
<br>All the best to you too Carl,
<br>
<br>Sadly I'm disappointed, of all on this F20 forum I expected you to understand the numbers.
<br>
<br>Greetings,
<br>
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

Attached Files
4189- (178 downloads)

Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: Certainly not. [Re: Wouter] #4128
11/24/01 05:49 PM
11/24/01 05:49 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
sail6000 Offline
old hand
sail6000  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
Hi wout -
<br>
<br> The childish tactics you have so often used on the open forum of partial information and misdirection really do not belong here -
<br> THIS IS THE 20 --REPEAT 20 --FORUM --for20 rules discussion including some concepts you may not comprehend or agree with ,on a size cat that you obviously do not sail , you bring your 16 ht bias , but this is not the way to promote 16s or encouage activity in it .Most have very serious reservations about your motives .-This does not help .
<br>
<br> We all understand basic measurements of length beam weight and sail area ,--weight effects wetted surface area -
<br> {static } --that is why 16s have favorable numbers ,--lightweight in comparison to heavy -420 lb iF 20 cats.
<br>
<br>-there is no great mystery here , though do appreciate the partial information and conclusions provided.
<br>
<br>-add 2 large crew gear and equipement {added weight }to a 16 and thrust of sails and numbers begin to vary .
<br>
<br>-Of course a smaller boat with better sail area to weight ratios like the A-Class ,--150 boat weight =150 sail area ,-will have a performance curve and ideal set of conditions where it performs ideally that overlap others , faster in that particular set of conditions , again we appreciate the testimonials thoughtfully provided .
<br>
<br>-This is the basis of the weight to sail area scale ratio proposed -FOR 20S -
<br> Existing heavier cats are allowed more sail area ,--the existing N-6/0 WITH LARGE existing 268 sq ft of main and jib and 348 SQ FT chute raced by many active racing N A sailors at the top end ,--down to a 320 LB 20 ft cat at the other end with SMALLER sailplan than existing iF 20S in a graduated scale . -An interesting performance curve within the 20 class from light air to heavy.
<br> Again something you totally misrepresented , obviously can not comprehend , -therefor your need to deconstruct , Does the prospect of equally lighter high performance 20s really threaten your percieved 16 agenda to this extent .
<br>
<br>-Lets give it a rest and on to more productive endeavors -
<br> We need 16 -18-and 20 classes -
<br>
<br>-this just in on the 18 NA Formula class-
<br>
<br>-
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Welcome to the North America Formula 18 Class website.
<br>
<br>Welcome to the North American Formula 18 Class Association website. Our purpose is to promote racing of ISAF Formula 18’s (F-18) in North America. We plan to race ISAF-18 compliant boats with simpler measurement rules and one jib size under a new class called the North American Formula 18 (NAF-18).
<br>
<br> Due to the much greater distances between fleets in North America, lower average winds speeds, smaller fleets and generally lower population densities, we believe that it is necessary to modify some of the F-18 rules for use by the NAF-18.
<br>
<br> The primary modification that we have made to the F-18 rules is the use of prototype boats and sails to control compliance with F-18 weight and dimensional requirements in NAF-18 boats. This shifts the onus of compliance with F-18 dimensional and boat weight requirements from the individual boat owner to the manufacturers. We have done this to eliminate the need for class Measurers in North America. The objective is to keep the cost of boats and regattas down by eliminating the cost of measurement for each individual boat and set of sails and by reducing the number of points that may be measured at an NAF-18 regatta.
<br>
<br> We plan to use the larger 4.15 m2 F-18 jib for all NAF-18’s rather than having a smaller 3.45 m2 for lighter crews and the 4.15 m2 for heavier crews. We have made this change to keep the cost of sail development down and because the smaller jib has little effect on boat speed.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Sailor's who are interested in getting involved or would like updates should Click Here
<br>
<br>Who we are: In early August, I started talking to Chris Herman about starting the F-18 class in North America. F-18 Class being a huge success in Europe for at least eight years, we decide to give it a shot. By October, Tom Liston jump in an got involved in the rules. Matt Stuble volunteered represent the Northern Area, the small committe decided Matt would be a great addition to the new class. Finally after all the re-rights the provisional rules are now posted. We also recieved input from appx. 20 sailors, across the country....330 hits on the new web page that hasn't been made public until now. We still have a work ahead....
<br>
<br>Regards
<br>
<br>Mark Biggers
<br>
<br>Chris Herman
<br>
<br>Tom Liston Rules
<br>
<br>Matt Struble Northern Region
<br>
<br>
<br>--local guys with CRAM doing a good job -
<br> -Carl<br><br>

Attached Files
4191- (183 downloads)

Moderated by  Damon Linkous 

Search

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 209 guests, and 79 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Darryl, zorro, CraigJ, PaulEddo2, AUS180
8150 Registered Users
Top Posters(30 Days)
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics22,405
Posts267,056
Members8,150
Most Online2,167
Dec 19th, 2022
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1