Wouter

You lost me somewhere. Are you talking about the poll that is somewhere earlier in this thread and relates specifically to the class insignia on the sails and boats? The poll that only received 11 votes worldwide?

As I think I have observed to you before, democracy does not seem to function well in the sailing world. But it is very nice of you to make the effort.

Just a suggestion: Maybe it would be easier for people to vote in the future if you make the voting poll a post of its own, instead of the poll being buried in another thread. And get Rick to sticky the poll at the top of the F16 forum for a given period of time, so people can find it. Something that says, "F16 Member Vote Required Here on X Topic."

Maybe people still would not vote, but at least they would not have the excuse of not being able to find it or not even knowing it was there or not remembering that it was there. And you would be able to easily refer people back to its specific location, even in the midst of discussions about the subject that might crop up in that same thread or other threads.

Believe it or not, most people are not paying attention to this forum all the time. If I had just arrived here, I would not have a clue what you are talking about as far as "the poll" or "voting has now ended."

Yep that would be the one. But it was more a poll then a vote. Besides the ISAF regulations will take precedence anyway ...

At least it determined that there is no significant resistance to this (ISAF compliant) setup. That is all we need to know.





Thank you.



Noted !




I believe that, the poll was open for over a month and was bumped up to the top of the board a few times. In principle people not bothering to vote are assumed to accept any outcome. And of course we weren't doing anything major here. Small stuff.

My intention is to allow input from everybody and guys like Mark provided that. And very helpful input as well.


Wouter

mark and all,



Okay we'll leave that rule as is.





My preference is that we only use nation codes and sailnumbers in the mainsail as is standard in catamaran classes. I will adjust the rule to reflect this.





It is what we polled upon in the last few weeks and it was expressed that some uniformity was desired by the class members. I rewritten soem of the rules as I ran into problems. I seriously dislike ISAF way of formulating rules. It is like a big word puzzle. This is one reason why we redefine several rulings of ISAF to make implementation easier and more accessible to normal folk.




It is now in the rules again. Sorry for the omission.





Has more to do with uniformity among F16 boats.




Spot on.





We can either but I prefer to have sailors make this choice themselfs. It is the same in the F18 class. I see no big advantages or disadvantage of either approach.




Ohh yeah I know of the differences; several are intentional.

Thank for your help mark.

What do you think of the rules now ?

http://www.geocities.com/f16hpclass/F16HP_class_rules_proposed_april_2005.html

Wouter

Mark.

Had a good talk with John Pierce today (Stealth) about simplifying the sail area rules.

I'll came back to me on teh exact area's and luff lengths of his sails and then we can decide on what simplification we'll perform.

It looks good. We can cut alot of complex stuff away without altering the resulting situation in any significant way.

Will try to talk to Greg Goodall tonight. Another long distance phone call for me ! I'm really looking forward to bringing this issue to bed.

Candidate high on the list are :

*** Option 1 ***

Maximal Mast & mainsail area = 15 sq. mtr. - 1.2 * (mainsail luff length - 8 mtr.)

A jib sail is considered to be compliant when the total jib sail area is no larger then 3.70 sq. mtr

***

*** Option 2 ***

Maximal Mast & mainsail area = 15 sq. mtr.

Max mainsail luff length is 8.05 mtr.

A jib sail is considered to be compliant when the total jib sail area is no larger then 3.70 sq. mtr


*** option 3 ***

Maximal Mast & mainsail area = 15 sq. mtr.

Max mainsail luff length is 8 mtr.

A jib sail is considered to be compliant when the total jib sail area is no larger then 3.70 sq. mtr

****


Either one of these simplifications should really help us with sailmakers and potential F16 sailors.

Wouter

Option 2 :

****

Maximum Mast & mainsail area = 15 sq. mtr.

Maximum Mainsail luff length is 8.1 mtr. (= 8100 mm)

Maximum jib sail area = 3.70 sq. mtr

(no maximum jib luff length defined for the jib; such a rule would serve no purpose)

****


Looks like this is the prefered candidate at this time.

Still need to talk to 2 builders (Matt McDonald and Greg Goodall), but Goodall will go along as he wanted such a simplification; Phill and John are already on line. Also 3 class heads have expressed support for this option already (Steve, Phill and myself) we have 6 class heads in total. So we are on the brink of a class authority majority. So this option look promising. I will however try to get full concensus on this issue.

Wouter

Wouter,

The spec for the Stealth F16 quotes a mast+mainsail area of 15.3 sq. m.

Does this rule simplification mean that existing Stealths will not measure? Or is it a case of 'depending on how you measure it'?

John



Don't worry.

All the old sails will remain class compliant.

Also we have gotten the exact data on the Stealth sails from Landenberger himself. They are at the very limit of the old rule but have less than 15.3 sq. mtr. of area. If they were at 15.3 sq.mtr. then they wouldn't be compliant under the old rule as well. I hope John can forgive me for giving away some real data here.

As it stands now, the simplified rule will be valid for all the boats build after, say, 1 may 2005. The builders are poised to all agree to that. All boats build before this date can choose which rule they want to use. There is as good as nothing between the 2 rules performance wise so it really doesn't matter which one is chosen. We fully expect the old boat crews to switch to the new rule when ever they get new sails a few years down the road.


An update :

Only Greg Goodall is now left to agree and three class officials, but as said before Greg is fully expected to go along. So we have 63 % in favour now and 75 % when counting Greg Goodall. The opinion of the class body is showing a clear trend. This simplification is very much welcomed by the builders and we have yet to see one class official to object. The sailmakers can't vote in this but it is clear that they favour this simplified rule as well. It is pretty obvious that all favour this simplification.


I still have to contact Gary Maskiel and a few other one-off home-builders. But I know Harry, Michael, Scott, Phill and myself are compliant with the new rule. All the mozzie sailors are compliant as well and the only two unaswered cases are Gary Maskiel and Stewart. I think Steward was already dispensated for this 9 mtr tall mast, so no chance for him. That pretty much leaves Gary. We are not going to hold on the simplification for him alone and if he is non-complaint with the simplified rule (rumour has it that he is compliant) than we'll dispensate him as well.

In the end that will leave us with a much simplified situation, With at max only 2 dispensations (Stewart and Gary) and a range of Stealth sailors that either just measure in under the simplified rule or just not. We're not going to make alot of fuss about that. They measure in under the old rule and therefor are compliant and have identical performance.

I think this puts an end to several years of finding the best setup for the F16's. We started out with allowing 9 mtr masts and a very free mainsail area rule. We had to because we allowed mast that ranged from 8.2 mtr to 9 mtr. In the last years we have been able to tighten the rules without much pain. With the simplified rule we have a very good rig. In the same time I have been able to fine-tune mathematical models and found that these 15 sq. mtr. by 8 mtr rig on a 8.5 mtr mast are just what you want for 140 kg crews when they have to race F18's on elapsed time.

To give a few good examples.

With this rig our aspect ratios of the sails are the same as the F18's. So no matter how ISAF and TEXEL rules are adjusted in weighting sails; F16 will stay at the F18 rating. The same aspect ratio forces any physical model (and reality) to exactly the right power in relation to the F18 (sailed at 150 kg or more)

This new rig is just very good on paper. And yes, it appears to be just as good in real life conditions. It has been reviewed from many angles by various parties and everybody seem to be very happy with it.

I feared it would be quite a struggle to everything in line, but we got lucky and it is all failing in place on its own. Even the performance difference to the old rule is better than hoped for. Less than 20 seconds per hour bouy racing.


But back to the point.

Stealth owners should not worry; they will all remain compliant.

Wouter

Greg Goodall has chosen sides as well.

He even replied to me on a weekend day, the first time ever. His exact first sentence was :"excellent idea. I am 100% in favour of this idea.".

Then he mentions he would have proposed it to me himself in the "very near future". I expected that as he has made several comments along those lines in the past as have several others.

Alright; this now means that we have a full bucket as far as designers and builders concerned. And we have 6 out of 9 officials that are in favour 1 voter understands the proces but would like to pospone it and two other votes still need to came in. But even if we count the last 3 votes as against then the group in favour has 6/9 votes = 2/3rd of the vote. I however fully expect Scott (local class head Asia) to support this simplification as well, making it 77 %.

I understand that this last contructions work on the rules can be a little unsettling to some, maybe even several, but the reactions of the builders and sailmakers was just sheer relieve and exitment. This simplificantion is really favoured by the supply side of things. And this side is just a very important part of the F16 class.

I will start a new thread explaining all the issues we could settle with this simplified rule. I trust that will make all of us understand the need for it as well as the benefits of it.

Wouter

Mate, Mine isnt compliant due to having the taller rig.

Myrule of thumb..
Anything that makes the measurers job easier and less stressful is good.

Hi Wouter,

just found this post. Haven't had time to go through all posts lately, to much sailing, driving, working and fit family in somewhere.

Have just run out to shed and measured mast, to late to pull out sail. Looks like my luff is at least 8.1 more like 8.2 or 8.3. Do you include all of sail or head to tack only, mine has flap underneath tack with a slug on it. I am not use to where measurement is taken on sail. Most classes I have sailed have bands on mast sail is not allowed to pass rather than measuring sail luff. Area shouldn't be a problem though seems to be smaller than other F16/Taipan sails I have compared it to. Am all for simplification though, Lindsay found it difficult to understand rules when making sail.

Regards Gary.

No worries mate, I estimated that you wouldn't come back with the measurements in a short timeframe. Take you time measuring the sails properly and than apply for a dispensation. I trust your sail is full compliant under the old rule and so this dispensation is garanteed to you.

My secret service agent (I'm king weezy right ? what is a dictator without an excellent spy network ?) already mentioned that your sailmaker had trouble understanding the rules and that your sail looks smaller than the Taipans/F16's. Your example contributed significantly to the choice to get the rules really simplified.




If you left the bottom as it was on the A-cat then I expect your luff to be around 8.2-8.3 mtr.




From the very top to the very bottom when fully tensioned (stretch). That would definately include the flap on the bottom.



On boats that are constructed such that the sail can not be stretch to a length longer than the distance between the bands than the distance between the bands is your luff length. However, it must be physically impossible to pass the bands. An obstruction must be present at the banda in the mast groof or something.

Please send your data to Formula16class(at)hotmail.com so we can register your dispensation. And take your time getting the measurements, there is no hurry. The new rules will be implemented and you will be dispensated.

Wouter


Wouter