Announcements
New Discussions
Sharks
by rturbett. 06/23/20 08:13 PM
A Question of Size
by BillHenslee. 06/15/20 06:20 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
F16 Class Philosophy and Membership #48050
04/27/05 06:52 AM
04/27/05 06:52 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,448
P
phill Offline OP

veteran
phill  Offline OP

veteran
P

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,448
As discussed in the other thread, and evident to many of us:-
We need people out showing their boats off at regattas. That is what is behind the current drive to include sailing at a regatta as part of the membership qualification.

Showing the F16 boats off "in force" at regattas will help draw people into the class and make it better for all.

I think we all know the above statement to be true.

However I wonder with todays presssures on both families and individuals, will we really get any more people out and about with their boats by threatenng them with regard to eligability of class membership, or will we be just limitting the class's potential growth by turning people away because they can not travel, or alternatively, pissing them off because they are being asked to jump through hoops.

From the very beginning we have promoted "inclusiveness"
as a corner stone of the F16 class's foundation.
This stance has had us inviting all classes of boats that can get themselves inside the box rule to come and sail with us.
So why should we discriminate against the sailors when it comes to membership.

I have always thought the all inclusive attitude to be a great assett to the F16 class and something that should be protected.

Following some consideration regarding memebership qualification and reasoning for it and discussions with Wouter I have come to the conclusion that we should not be limitting memebership to people that travel or even people that race as that would go against the basic "inclusiveness" principal.

Sure, I'd like to see people racing and even travelling to regattas but I would also like to see people involved that are enthused about the concept of one day owning an F16, or people that enjoy hanging around the F16 class for social reasons. Or people that just want an F16 to tinker with and work out better ways of doing things. All the time we stand the opportunity for the infectious level of their enthusiasm to rub off onto others.

Anyone with an interest in the class should be invited to join and be encouraged to be involved at whatever level with which they feel most comfortable.

We must strive to encourage participation at all levels.

Who gets to vote on what is seconadry to the principal of including whoever wants to be involved in spreading the word and building the class. It matters not if they are racing at big regattas, holding up the F16 flag at their local club or socialising around F16 gossip in their local pub. As a matter of principal we should welcome them all.

Now to make this all happen we need to take a careful look at how we present and deliver the F16 Class to each and every person. No matter how they choose to be involved.

It is up to us to make it so people want to be in our corner preaching the F16 word.

Just the way I see it.

Regards,
Phill


I know that the voices in my head aint real,
but they have some pretty good ideas.
There is no such thing as a quick fix and I've never had free lunch!

--Advertisement--
Re: F16 Class Philosophy and Membership [Re: phill] #48051
04/27/05 09:43 AM
04/27/05 09:43 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 548
MERRITTISLAND, FL
Matt M Offline
addict
Matt M  Offline
addict

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 548
MERRITTISLAND, FL
Phill,

I saw the full page of text and though it was Wouter posting.

I fully agree with this though. The F16 as a class is fully in its infancy. We have a lot of momentum (especially in the US) to overcome before people will look at it as a recognized class of racing.

I see this happening in a couple of phases.

1) Lock in the class rules. For better or for worse, it is done and this is how we are organizing the class. Continued changes keep people from commiting, as they are sitting back and waiting to see where it all falls out.
2) All remaining efforts dirrected towards growing the class. If someone is willing to commit to owning an F16 there is no reason they should not be able to become a member of the organization if they wish. The first F16 sold to a guy living in the boonies of South Dakota may have a 12+ hr drive just to get to another F16 owner and that is still not enough to make a valid race, but he may be the emmisary that sells the concept and in a couple of years there is a large active fleet in the state.

Promotion of events and accolades heaped on those who attend and more importantly host organized F16 functions has to continue, because this concept while fun to sail is in reality a performance boat designed for racing, not a beat around day sailer for the novice. Promotion should not come at the expense of excluding any form of participation.

IMHO

Matt

Re: F16 Class Philosophy and Membership [Re: Matt M] #48052
04/27/05 09:50 AM
04/27/05 09:50 AM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
Stewart Offline
old hand
Stewart  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
only 12 hours away!!! sheesh that is close.. Think Im roughly 36 hours non stop driving away from the nearest F16

Re: F16 Class Philosophy and Membership [Re: phill] #48053
04/27/05 09:56 AM
04/27/05 09:56 AM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 86
Netherlands
sjon Offline
journeyman
sjon  Offline
journeyman

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 86
Netherlands
I agree with this point of view. You cannot change the world by making rules or structures. That is not to say that you don't need any structure at all. Structures or rules should be helpful but cannot enforce our goals, you should do with a minimum of rules if possible I would say. The product itself should generate enthousiasm and the urge to compete with others. Some do that on their own club. I for instance can sail every week a race on my club (2 miles from my house) with about thirty or fourty cats as competitors. Other places on the planet have other circumstances and other practices. Indeed, we should strive for inclusiveness.
I for myself think that when people will discover that you are not obliged to race a heavy "truck" but that there are also possibilities to do it on lighter "state-ot-the-art" crafts (that can be sailed competitive with the older generation of heavy aircraft-carriers)will generate enthousiasm for our class.
I thank the people who had the vision to develop this idea into the F16 concept and design some fine boats. The ruling monopolists would never have done that.

Re: F16 Class Philosophy and Membership [Re: sjon] #48054
04/27/05 10:21 AM
04/27/05 10:21 AM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,558
Key Largo, FL & Put-in-Bay, OH...
Mary Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Mary  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,558
Key Largo, FL & Put-in-Bay, OH...
What is a monopolist?

Re: F16 Class Philosophy and Membership [Re: phill] #48055
04/27/05 11:55 AM
04/27/05 11:55 AM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,382
Essex, UK
Jalani Offline
veteran
Jalani  Offline
veteran

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,382
Essex, UK
As a new F16 member, I am perhaps not particularly qualified to comment on the rules for membership. However, if my view is of interest, I believe that any class that is just starting out (and 4 years on that is where F16 still is) needs to foster members and friends wherever it can. To generate an air of discrimination or exclusivity by limiting membership to only those who race in largish fleets is counterproductive. This is for all the reasons outlined above by others plus it will discriminate against those who view the boat for what it really is; an easily sailed, lightweight, exciting, speed machine.

Although a racer at heart myself, since getting my Stealth I have been more than impressed with how easy the boat is to sail with a light, novice crew (my wife on one occasion, and my 12 year old son 3 times) and above all how much FUN just going for a blast was.

In just two weeks we have already generated a lot of interest at our club amongst family sailors and if I was to honour every request I have had for a trial sail "when you've got a chance", I'd never get any sailing or racing done for myself.

These people are unlikely to be the sort to go big fleet or regatta racing but would be solid club sailors - as the rules stand they could be excluded from membership. Perhaps two classes of membership -voting and non-voting? Whatever the majority decide to be the criteria for membership is OK by me, but I know from past experience that many people just like to feel that they 'belong' to the association of the class of boat they sail without being activists. To get their regular newsletters, ballots or special 'exclusive' offers etc.

Here's looking forward to the all-inclusive F16 class!


John Alani
___________
Stealth F16s GBR527 and GBR538
Re: F16 Class Philosophy and Membership [Re: Mary] #48056
04/27/05 01:53 PM
04/27/05 01:53 PM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 86
Netherlands
sjon Offline
journeyman
sjon  Offline
journeyman

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 86
Netherlands
monopolist
I have only a cheap dictionary with not too many words, so I guessed that this would be an English word.
To make a long story short I meant Hobie and Nacra who in fact have a monopoly. They dictate the market and have no interest in innovation which would mean they should have to invest in more complicated production methods or more expensive labor.

Re: F16 Class Philosophy and Membership [Re: sjon] #48057
04/27/05 02:37 PM
04/27/05 02:37 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,558
Key Largo, FL & Put-in-Bay, OH...
Mary Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Mary  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,558
Key Largo, FL & Put-in-Bay, OH...
You're right. It is a word. I had just never heard it before and I didn't make the connection to monopoly. I thought maybe you were referring somehow to monohull sailors, since they are the ones who rule the sailing establishment.

I had never thought of Hobie Cat and Performance as being monopolies -- I always thought of them as survivors.

Last edited by Mary; 04/27/05 02:38 PM.
Re: F16 Class Philosophy and Membership [Re: Mary] #48058
04/28/05 04:17 AM
04/28/05 04:17 AM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 612
Cape Town, South Africa
Steve_Kwiksilver Offline
addict
Steve_Kwiksilver  Offline
addict

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 612
Cape Town, South Africa
Well the current proposal Wouter made on what qualifies you to be a voting member probably goes back to a private post I made to him some time ago in which I proposed that he formalises the membership criteria, in order to prevent the unnecessary long-winded discussions that occurred on the Forum about how the F16 class should be run, who can vote on the rules etc, mostly started by inquisitive folks who were not at the time involved in the class, and in my mind are still not. Some of these discussions led others to believe the class was disorganised (because it did not have a Democratically elected president and committee that most US sailors are comfortable with), that it did not "allow" sailors to form their own local associations even if they wanted to (Wouter said go ahead, knock yourselves out, do what makes you happy, he`s just not doing it for you). I find it ridiculous that some folks believe they should have a say in matters regarding a class that they are not yet members of. I also believe ownership of an F16 compliant boat is not enough. It`s like saying you want to join an archery association, go to their meetings and vote on how they run themselves, because you have a bow and quiver of arrows somewhere in the attic under a rolled-up carpet collecting dust, which you have absolutely no intention of using. This is why most yacht clubs and boat classes struggle to grow and change for the better, they are dictated to by voting members who turn up at the club exactly once a year, at the AGM, just to have their say.
Here is an example of how being fully-inclusive can harm if not kill off this class before it even gets going : Take the Australian situation, where the Taipan could form the strongest seat of F16 sailing in the world. Now give every Taipan owner the right to vote on F16 issues(I think there are about 200 of them), even though they don`t even own a spinnaker (their boat is still fully F16 compliant under the rules, no rule says the boat MUST be fitted with a spinnaker !). They could vote against any proposal that would allow development in any way, since they percieve that this would allow other boats to be built that could be faster than they are, which would not suit them. This in my mind would be detrimental to the rest of the boat-owners in this class, since you can count the Taipan sailors in Australia who have supported F16 in any way over the last 4 years on one hand. Having an involvement-based membership system prevents this kind of problem.
After all, why would you want to be a member of an association that is there to promote a class of RACING boats if you have no intention of racing them ? If you just like the boat because of it`s design, get one by all means and go sailing. If you never race it as an F16 then don`t worry yourself over whether the class rules change from time to time, or whether your boat complies with them or not. In fact, don`t even worry yourself whether an F16 organisation even exists or not. If you own a Blade or Taipan or Stealth or whatever, keeping it class-legal to it`s own class rules will pretty much ensure that it is F16 class legal as well, since the F16 authority would never change the rules in such a way that any of the presently included classes would become outlawed,(would they ???) as that would be suicidal in my opinion.
I agree with being inclusive, but we must be careful to include those with a common goal ie that of promoting the F16 class. Perhaps allowing club-races to count would help those who can`t travel, or even having a membership application form in which you describe how you intend helping the F16 class to grow should you be granted membership if you don`t intend to race at all. Your membership application could then be accepted or rejected based on this, and could even be revoked if you don`t deliver on your promise, or show that you have at least made an attempt. Maybe my ideas are a little controversial, feel free to disagree.

Steve

Re: F16 Class Philosophy and Membership [Re: Steve_Kwiksilver] #48059
04/28/05 07:18 AM
04/28/05 07:18 AM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,558
Key Largo, FL & Put-in-Bay, OH...
Mary Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Mary  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,558
Key Largo, FL & Put-in-Bay, OH...
Steve,
When we bought our Taipan 4.9 three or four years ago, one of the reasons was that we thought we (or at least Rick) would be able to race it in the F16 class.

It did not come with a spinnaker and pole, etc. We were told that in order to be an F16 we had to have the spinnaker. So we bought the whole spinnaker rig after the fact.

Are you saying it is NOT required to have a spinnaker rig for the boat in order to be F16 compliant and that you can still be a member of the class and have a vote if you don't have a spinnaker?

And is that why those 200 Taipan 4.9's in Australia are able to be F16 class members and be able to vote, even if they have not modified to include spinnakers?

This is a bit disconcerting or consternating or something like that.

The rules "seem" to say the boat is required to have a main, jib and spinnaker for double-handed racing and a main and spinnaker for single-handed racing. They also say you don't necessarily have to USE all the sails, in either configuration, when racing.

I took the latter caveat to be just for safety reasons or personal preference given the sailing conditions.

So now it turns out that we did NOT have to buy that spinnaker?

Quote
1.11.1 The sail plan in the double handed configuration comprises a mainsail, a jib and a gennaker.

1.11.2 The sail plan in the single handed configuration comprises a mainsail with a gennaker.

1.11.3 It is allowed to race with fewer sails than the sails named per configuration.

Re: F16 Class Philosophy and Membership [Re: Mary] #48060
04/28/05 07:33 AM
04/28/05 07:33 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Mary, I think the rules you quoted are pretty clear. You do not have to have any sails to be F16 compliant. OTOH, if you're hoping to be competitive, then you would want to have all the sails, including a spinnaker.

If your objective was to sail F16, then I'm sure you did the right thing.

Mark.

Re: F16 Class Philosophy and Membership [Re: ] #48061
04/28/05 07:47 AM
04/28/05 07:47 AM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,558
Key Largo, FL & Put-in-Bay, OH...
Mary Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Mary  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,558
Key Largo, FL & Put-in-Bay, OH...
Well, then, the rules are not clear at all. I read them to say you have to have those sails in order to be an F16 but you don't necessarily have to use them all when racing. And that latter is true, of course about any racing class. With any class you can reduce sail, you can reef, you can furl, you can race under bare poles, if you want to. That is totally separate from the sail configuration(s) that defines that class.

P.S. Maybe that third rule, 1.11.3, should just be eliminated as being unnecessary and self-evident.

Last edited by Mary; 04/28/05 08:11 AM.
Re: F16 Class Philosophy and Membership [Re: Mary] #48062
04/28/05 08:08 AM
04/28/05 08:08 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



You make an interesting point Mary. I had not read the rules that way, and I suspect most others would not either (though I may just be expressing my own bias there).

Under you're interpretation, would you have to have the sails on the boat (but not rigged, e.g. in a bag on the tramp) in order to race? Can 1.11.3 reasonably be taken to mean that? Or would you say that you just have to own those sails even if they're not on the boat?

I guess this is a point where 2.4.1 applies .

Mark.

Re: F16 Class Philosophy and Membership [Re: ] #48063
04/28/05 08:16 AM
04/28/05 08:16 AM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,558
Key Largo, FL & Put-in-Bay, OH...
Mary Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Mary  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,558
Key Largo, FL & Put-in-Bay, OH...
Yes, I would definitely interpret the rules to say that those are the sails you have to have on the boat, along with the rigging to use them.

The spinnaker is the primary feature that distinguishes the F16 class from some of the subsidiary one-design classes under its umbrella.

But Wouter is the rules person, so he should be the one to answer the question and interpret the existing rules.

Re: F16 Class Philosophy and Membership [Re: Mary] #48064
04/28/05 09:37 AM
04/28/05 09:37 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


Yes, I am the guy who should give intepretation on the rules after consulting the related officials and class. However in this case I will stay silent till Phill Brander has completed his membership proposal/project. It will not be good to intepretate the sailplan rules vs membership at this stage and thus run in the wheels of Phill.

So sorry guys no quick answer this time.

On one thing Mark is right though. If you want to be competitive then you really must have a spinnaker. Their is simply no way one can stay with the pack when the pack is using a spi and you are not.



Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: F16 Class Philosophy and Membership [Re: Mary] #48065
04/28/05 10:41 AM
04/28/05 10:41 AM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 612
Cape Town, South Africa
Steve_Kwiksilver Offline
addict
Steve_Kwiksilver  Offline
addict

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 612
Cape Town, South Africa
Oops, sorry that was my personal interpretation of the rules. I assumed if I wanted to sail 2-up without the jib, I would be allowed to do so, and would be able to leave it and the sheets, blocks etc in the trailerbox, rather than stuff it in a pocket so it was "part of the boat". As long as I comply with all other class rules ie min. weight etc (after removing jib & blocks), who would object ? My understanding of the rules is that they would allow you to design & build a uni-rig boat if that`s what you want, as long as it fits the box-rule and complies with all other rules. If it`s slower than the sloop configuration 2-up, well then that`s what you chose. So my interpretation is that the rig is limited to mainsail, jib & spinnaker, but you don`t have to have all of these if you think you`ll be competitive without either, as long as you understand that you`ll be competing against others who do have all 3 sails, and are likely to be lapping you. Likewise I`d have assumed that if you chose to sail without spinnaker, you could leave all the paraphernalia associated with it on the beach, as long as you are min. weight without this kit, and are prepared to go downwind slowly, and attempt to make the cut-off time in each race. Not much fun either way.

What I was getting at, Mary, is that I believe it would be undesirable to have members who are not sailing their boats and, in fact, racing them, as full F16`s ie with a spinnaker, as this is the intent of the class :

From the "short description" on the class web-site :
"The "Formula 16" is a controlled multi-manufacturer development formula class. A class for 5 mtr. (16,4 ft.) long High Performance and asymmetric spinnaker equipped beach catamarans.

It regulates both 2-up (skipper and crew) and 1-up (solo) regatta sailing with an asymmetric spinnaker."

I think it`s fairly clear that the INTENT of the class is that it is there to regulate & promote "regatta sailing" (ie RACING) and that boats SHOULD be spinnaker-equipped.

Just as the rules stipulate that the maximum length is 5m, it allows you to enter a 14ft boat if you think that it will be competitive, of course "first in wins", so best be sure of your boat`s capabilities before making an idiot of yourself. Likewise if you choose to leave your mainsail on the beach and can win races, I`ll crew for you anyday !
The Mosquito class is a good case study : 4,9m long, mast is 7,3m (ie 1,2m shorter !), our spinnaker is 4,5sqm LESS than the F16 class allows. Technically speaking the boat is way under spec and complies with all F16 rules except min. weight, for which we have applied for dispensation (Australian boats only, SA boats are on min. weight).
On paper we are slower than full F16 but where we sail I`d rather be sailing on the edge on my Mozzie than cartwheeling all over the ocean on a Taipan or Blade. (Your rating means nothing when you`re upside-down)

As I said, my interpretation may be wrong, just have to wait for Wouter to get back to us on this one, Apology for leading you astray..

Steve

Re: F16 Class Philosophy and Membership [Re: Steve_Kwiksilver] #48066
04/28/05 11:15 AM
04/28/05 11:15 AM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,558
Key Largo, FL & Put-in-Bay, OH...
Mary Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Mary  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,558
Key Largo, FL & Put-in-Bay, OH...
My interpretations:
If you are sailing with two people on the boat, you would be required to have all three sails on the boat -- main, jib and spinnaker (including spinnaker pole), whether you use all or any of them.

If you are sailing single-handed, you would be required to have main and spinnaker on the boat (whether you use them or not) and would be required to NOT have a jib on the boat.

P.S. I am only giving my interpretations so Wouter and others can figure out how to clarify things, and not because I think my interpretations are right.

Last edited by Mary; 04/28/05 11:19 AM.
Re: F16 Class Philosophy and Membership [Re: Steve_Kwiksilver] #48067
04/28/05 11:16 AM
04/28/05 11:16 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



I think both Phill and Steve have made very reasonable, though different, points. If I had to choose between them, I would probably lean towards Phill's argument. However I'm more inclined to look for a solution that meets as many reasonable objectives as possible.

At this point it's appropriate to say once more that I am not currently an F16 owner, only an interested observer, so make of this what you will, and please by all means ignore me if you wish...

As far as voting eligibility is concerned (which may be a different issue from membership per se), I like the idea that people who vote are active F16 racers. Ultimately, the only purpose of the rules, I think, is to facilitate racing, so I don't know why it would make sense for people who aren't racing as F16 to be interested in, let along responsble for, changing the rules.

However I think adding an additional requirement (e.g. regatta size) that is really aimed at getting people to go the extra mile (literally!) specifically to actively promote the class is not necessarily the best way, and perhaps not even a good way, to get the maximum number of people enthused about the class. And as I've said before, it's difficult to ensure geographical equity in the way such a requirement is imposed.

I would be quite comfortable with a situation in which voting members are restricted to those who have shown that they are genuine F16 sailors by sailing N races as F16 in the past year (either straight up in a designated F16 fleet or off an F16 handicap in a mixed fleet). I would not exclude club races nor place any restriction on how many boats they have sailed against. On the other hand, unlike the original proposal, I would be inclined to make N > 1.

However, as Phill said to start with, this should all be about more than voting, and if the class wanted to define membership and voting as separate issues (e.g. to enable people to sign up for newsletters and other things as John Alani mentioned) I think that would be absolutely fine. And as Matt said, the rules really should be fixed for a good long period anyway to help get this thing rolling.

So although the membership/voting issue is important, and worth debating, the more pressing issue is how to help people feel connected with the community. That's a separate discussion.

Mark.

Re: F16 Class Philosophy and Membership [Re: ] #48068
04/28/05 01:27 PM
04/28/05 01:27 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 69
Chuck Offline
journeyman
Chuck  Offline
journeyman

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 69
I go with what Phill says. I do not think you should have to be in a big event to be a F16 member. I do think you should own a F16. (not a sloop sailed Taipan) If you want to have a qualifier that to vote on F16 rules you have to have sailed in a race or two - that is fine with me. Though I doubt a sailor that hasn't raced once the whole year is going to worry about voting on racing issues. If it becomes a problem make it a rule next year.

On a different subject - I wish there was a seperate forum where all the verbal sparring could be conducted so that people interested in the boat could come here and only read threads about racing, performance, comparisons of F18 to F16, etc - but not have to sift through "why the class rules are different than other classes" - why our class spokesman was not elected, etc. To a newcomer these discussions comes off as negative and make people think twice whether this is an organization they wish to be part of.

Finally I don't think personal attacks should be tolerated. If a thread or message attacks a person instead of the issue, than it should be removed.

Catsailor.com (thanks Mary and Rick) is one of the first places people go to find information on catsailing and to catch the "stoke". To promote sailing we should make sure we keep our posts "above board". F16 is competing with F18, F18HT, A cats, etc for potential new sailors. I would really hate to lose a prospective new sailor because they got turned off by a discussion.

Chuck

Re: F16 Class Philosophy and Membership [Re: ] #48069
04/28/05 01:31 PM
04/28/05 01:31 PM
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 19
Homestead, Fl.
rickmatos Offline
stranger
rickmatos  Offline
stranger

Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 19
Homestead, Fl.
I have been following this class' growth since it was F-16 HT.
I have only included my thoughts, perhaps a half dozen times.
My original interested was due to this class’ homebuilder potential.

As far as the exact language of the membership, and how it is interpreted, I think that the most important and helpful section in the rules is the following:

1.1.1 In case of doubt, the intention of the rule makers which is referred to as the spirit of the rule, shall take precedence over the letter of the rule.

This gives all interested parties lots of room to work with any language. Being that through this forum, all vocal parties ARE the rule makers.


I would like to contact anyone interested in this class, located in Florida to contact me via Private E-mail:
Rmatos@easternyachts.net

I would like to arrange a meeting of some sort, probably lots of b/s and beer but maybee we can put a race together.


Ricky 305-562-2490 Homestead, FL. Skype: Boataholik matosr@windjammer.com
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Damon Linkous, phill, Rolf_Nilsen 

Search

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 23 guests, and 113 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
WreckedEmRalph, wavelover, CenterAttend, konstantinsail, RayMart
8038 Registered Users
Top Posters(30 Days)
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics22,379
Posts266,989
Members8,038
Most Online1,650
Sep 10th, 2019
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1