Announcements
New Discussions
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Re: some sailmakers around? [Re: Rolf_Nilsen] #53858
08/03/05 02:25 AM
08/03/05 02:25 AM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,012
South Australia
Darryl_Barrett Offline
old hand
Darryl_Barrett  Offline
old hand

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,012
South Australia
I'm not to sure that I would consider "converting" an existing sail to a squarehead, I was thinking more along the lines of a new replacement sail when and if it was wanted/required. It would be a fairly "iffy" job to completely rebuild an existing top into a squarehead and a bit "hit and miss" I would have thought.

--Advertisement--
Re: some sailmakers around? [Re: Darryl_Barrett] #53859
08/03/05 02:40 AM
08/03/05 02:40 AM
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,451
West coast of Norway
Rolf_Nilsen Offline

Carpal Tunnel
Rolf_Nilsen  Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,451
West coast of Norway
Yes Darryl, it would be an 'iffy' job, not something I would consider unless the sail is going to be converted to bags anyway

I tought a conversion was what Dirk asked about?

Re: some sailmakers around? [Re: Rolf_Nilsen] #53860
08/03/05 04:07 AM
08/03/05 04:07 AM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 185
Shanghai, China
Dirk Offline
member
Dirk  Offline
member

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 185
Shanghai, China
yes rolf,

but to be honest with refering to th AC I had something more useful than 'bags' in mind...


image shows GER 72 before modification in act 4 ...

Attached Files
54691-act45_21.jpg (372 downloads)
Last edited by Dirk; 08/03/05 04:08 AM.

Dirk A-Cat GER 5 F-16 CHN 1 (sold) SC 6.5 CHN 808
conversion [Re: Dirk] #53861
08/03/05 04:10 AM
08/03/05 04:10 AM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 185
Shanghai, China
Dirk Offline
member
Dirk  Offline
member

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 185
Shanghai, China
GER 72 after mainsail-conversion in act 5

regarding the comment to the tornado sail,
the classical tornado sail did not has a
square top, so enlarging a small square top
to a larger one might be much more easy than
transforming a non square top sail into one!

Attached Files
54692-act45_28.jpg (329 downloads)
Last edited by Dirk; 08/03/05 04:35 AM.

Dirk A-Cat GER 5 F-16 CHN 1 (sold) SC 6.5 CHN 808
Try contacting [Re: Dirk] #53862
08/03/05 05:54 AM
08/03/05 05:54 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

Quote

any experience sailmaker around to comment on this?
could be a low-cost option instead of buying a new sail ... :-)


Try contacting Marcus Towell (forum handle Marcus_W_Towell ) using the Forum PM mailing service. Chris Dean and he designed and build the Blade F18 sails and they seems to do very well. He could well help you out. Otherwise why just not contact Glenn Ashby himself ? Otherwise contact Phill Brander, he used to make his own sails as well and therefor may provide you with some helpful comments.

I personally agree with Rolf. It would be a nice experiment if they sail was about to be disguarded anyway. But I'm not sure whether it is an easy mod. Mostly because I fully expect that you'll need to restitch the seams up to, which may be a difficult job to do on a radial sail. And because the leech round for a squaretop sail apparently must be more straight to get the sail to work well. And the standard Taipan mainsail has quite a curved leech. On the other hand maybe if you straighten out the top 3rd of the leech you maybe able to get pretty close to what you need. Maybe all the curvature adjustment that you'll need can be forced into the top by carefully arc-ing the leech there and putting the right battens in. It will be quite a project though with a series of tryouts and intermediate recutting.

The area difference between the standard Taipan 4.9 mainsail and the new F16 compliant mainsails is just enough to simply add some 400 mm to the squaretop and have a triangle of extra cloth run down to about 2.5 mtr along the leech (= top 1/3 of mainsail).

Personally I like my F16 mainsail. I've only sailed with the standard Taipan mainsails on other peoples boats so my experience there is limited, but I have a feeling that the entlarged head on my mainsail really works. Also I got one of the first custom F16 mainsails (build 2003) on my boat and just as with Eric Poulsens boat I got quite a pronounced leech round, the newer mains have a far straighter leech by now. So yes maybe a standard Taipan main can indeed by recut and entlarge while still scoring improvements even though they may be less than getting a completely new main. Also my experience is that improvements are mostly in the control and handling of the sail. Straight line speed in stable conditions seems to be rather comparable to the standard Taipan main.

I do think however that downwind sailing WITHOUT a spi (something I almost never do anymore) is really helped by a large squaretop. It really seems to help induce a large twist along the leech allowing you to optimize drive all along the mainsail. Without it you always seem to either stall the top or undersheet the bottom.

Wouter


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: some sailmakers around? [Re: Darryl_Barrett] #53863
08/03/05 06:36 AM
08/03/05 06:36 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
Quote

Surely the Taipans could "optimise" their sail cut for F16 (as opposed to "one design") by having their mainsails cut with a larger square top, from my personal observations, I think that their performance would only improve with such a change?



As the class chairman I must often be very careful with my comments on the different makes of boats. The problem of official impartiality.

However, this time I'm going to break this unwritten rule.

I have what is called a Taipan F16. It uses the Taipan 4.9 hull shape, Superwing mast and the new AHPC carbon rudder system and daggerboards. Everything else is F16 optimized. In summary I have a different and larger rearbeam, platform is wider, I have a selftacking jib, spinnaker setup, raised mainbeam for more clearence of the water and I've got a 2003 fully optimized 580 mm squaretop F16 mainsail. And then a score of little change like turnbuckles on my diamonds so that I can change the prebend settings between races without lowering my sails or tipping the boat over.

I've sailed and race this setup for a year now and can honestly say that this boat is a noticeable improvement over the standard Taipan 4.9. Although most improvements are made in how the boat behaves and less so in performance (with the exception of the spinnaker). The basic Standard Taipan 4.9 is a good boat and truly a fast boat. But when it comes down to some hard racing in tight fleets the F16 version (Not the Taipan 4.9 + spi) is just better.

Points that show noticeable improved :

-1- The trampoline area is alot more roomy then before. Actually with the selftacker the effective space was increased so much that I really don't see a need for a larger trampoline on the F16's. With the old jib system the trampoline was cramped, but with the selftacker it is absolutely right. Maybe even a bit large, probably could do equally well with less.

-2- The selftacker is a just a pleasure to sail. Quick tacks and gibes for two reasons. First : lots of room on the trampoline for the crew to move about. Secondly, less work to do for the crew in tacks and gibes. Often they can just swing themself inward, run to the other side (maybe pulling the new spi sheet with them), hook on and push themselfs out. This all seriously speeds up your tacks and gibes. Because of this improvement the boat keeps up its speed better through the manouvre and it is easily accellerated without changing any trim (mast rotation etc) away. If you ever challange a standard Taipan to a tacking or gibing duel then the F16 version with selftacker will win it, hands down.

-3- The new rearbeam, really works, although getting a stiffer mainbeam will work even more. The asian Taipan F16 (see picture) is probably what needs to be done to the basic Taipan design. It really helps platform stiffness.


[Linked Image]


-4- The larger squaretop mainsail works.

-5- The raised mainbeam (25 mm higher on the decks on my boat) really works. Those 25 mm do make a difference.

-6- The spinnaker addition is the single biggest performance and handling improvement that can even be made to this boat. The boat is significantly better to control downwind and it really keeps the bows out. The speed increase is of course really big.

-7- Sheeting the mast rotation of the trampoline instead of the boom is in my opinion another improvement that needs to be incorporated in all F16's. It allows full depowering when letting the main traveller out. Something that is less pronounced with the old system. It also cuts down on complexity.

-8- Extra width. Extra room on the trampoline and more leverage in a blow.

The Taipan 4.9 was really due for an upgrade of this magnitude. It just gives the design a new lease on life. Sure the hull shape is of a different timeframe, but with these mods the boat is very much on a level with the newer designs. Something that testifies to the excellence of the basic design and the superwing rig. But even such good designs must every now and then go with the times and decide to upgrade.

AHPC is going partly the way by offering what they now call the "Taipan Hunter", but my advice to any new customer is to not settle for anything less than a fully optimized Taipan F16, with all the mods as described above. These mods are all well worth the money. And the One-design class rules of the Taipan 4.9 have absolutely no meaning outside of Australia itself for we are never going to get a OD standard Taipan class going outside of Australia. The windown of opportunity for that was in in 1999 and 2000 and honestly "we" and AHPC completely missed that window. Now it is "1 F16 please" or "No thank you, I will buy boat from another builder"

Wouter




Last edited by Wouter; 08/03/05 06:38 AM.

Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: Try contacting [Re: Wouter] #53864
08/03/05 06:53 AM
08/03/05 06:53 AM
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,451
West coast of Norway
Rolf_Nilsen Offline

Carpal Tunnel
Rolf_Nilsen  Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,451
West coast of Norway
Dirk, I guess the germans re-did the broadseaming and luff curve in the top of their sail as well as adding cloth to the leech. No big deal for them, as they have sailmakers on their project and accurate computer models + plotters/cutters. It's a different ballgame to do it at home, based on measurements and guesswork


Without re-doing the head area (as Wouter describes) the results will probably be dysmal. The profile/draft will not be in the right place, and the extra cloth will probably just add drag and possibly a hooking leech. The idea behind the extra-square tops is to add more power in the top and you need to adjust draft to accomplish this. I still think it would be easier to just cut off the top meter, meter and a half or more, and put on a new top. Much easier than fiddling with manually re-cutting radial panels. But this is something that demands a powerful sewing machine where you can adjust thread tension to a very high setting (i.e. industrial machine, if you dont want to try superbonding, but thats out of scope here).

Perhaps Marcus or Phill have some creative ideas..

Re: Try contacting [Re: Rolf_Nilsen] #53865
08/03/05 10:58 AM
08/03/05 10:58 AM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 322
South Australia
Marcus F16 Offline
enthusiast
Marcus F16  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 322
South Australia
Dirk, Wouter & Rolf,

If you simply add the extra 700mm to the head of the old "pin" head Tornado sail, you will only gain about 50% of the potential. If you think about it, the extra sail cloth will only push the max drive point further forward & this can only be rectified by re-working the broadseaming ( as Rolfe Nislen suggested). I think sailmakers would generally prefer to either add sail cloth or make a new sail, as to re-work the seams in the head of an old sail would be very time consuming & a "stab in the dark". I inherited a modified ullman main with the marstrom tornado that I bought, which all they did was make the last radial panel larger to the wide head. I'm sure at the time the owner was satisfied mentally, but not performance wise !!!

BTW - we are going to further modify this sail for the first sail for our blade 16 to see how everything settles down.!!

Trusts this helps.

Marcus


Marcus Towell

Formula Catamarans Aust Pty Ltd
canted hulls are forbidden? [Re: Marcus F16] #53866
08/03/05 12:24 PM
08/03/05 12:24 PM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 185
Shanghai, China
Dirk Offline
member
Dirk  Offline
member

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 185
Shanghai, China
@wouter

otherwise you missed this nice 'modernization' for a better steering and boats behaviour...

anyhow, is there some place you can download the class rules (and please don't refer to any geocities site, which are blocked by the Chinese government...)?

15m² mainsail includes the mast surface area? anyone knows how much is the mastsurface area of a standard 4.9 superwing?

thanks!


Dirk A-Cat GER 5 F-16 CHN 1 (sold) SC 6.5 CHN 808
Re: canted hulls are forbidden? [Re: Dirk] #53867
08/03/05 06:48 PM
08/03/05 06:48 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

Quote


@wouter

canted hulls are forbidden?



No. You may have canted hulls if you want to. Even canted daggerboards and to a larger degree than the A-cats may have.

We are actually more open in this respect than the A-cats.

Quote

otherwise you missed this nice 'modernization' for a better steering and boats behaviour...



It appears that the spinnaker boats are not helped as much by canted as the A-cats. All F18 catamaran design's have gone back to non-canted hulls even though it is allowed to cant in the F18 class. From an economic point of view, canted hulls are an unattractive issue.

Personally I have never really seen canted platforms excell in the F18 class or other classes except the A-cats. Certainly not enough to warrant the additional costs. For this reason I don't expect to see it being introduced to the F16's any time soon.

But it is very much allowed. So homebuilders, this may be a field that you can still be unique in.


Quote

anyhow, is there some place you can download the class rules (and please don't refer to any geocities site, which are blocked by the Chinese government...)?



I think I will ask for a class member to convert the class rules to PDF format. Mark Woudenberg are you up to it ?


Dirk can you read Word 97 files ? If so then I can probably e-mail you the rules.


Quote

15m² mainsail includes the mast surface area? anyone knows how much is the mastsurface area of a standard 4.9 superwing?



I just measured the circumference of it on a piece of mast section I have here at home: 340 mm is the circumference.

For the F16 compliance you'll need to multiply the maximum luff length of your mainsail with the halve of the circumference. We are a little different in this then the A-cats that just take the area over the whole mast. We only include the part of the mast that is acting as the leading edge of the sailarea behind it.

I'm guessing you have a flat on the bottom of your mainsail so in your case max luff = 8050 mm by 170 mm = 1.3685 = 1.37 sq. mtr.

This means that your mainsail in actual area (excluding the boltrope in the luff which is inside the mast track) may be 15 - 1.37 sq. mtr. = 13.63 sq. mtr. and not a fraction bigger.

I hope this helps.

Wouter





thanks!


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: canted hulls are forbidden? [Re: Wouter] #53868
08/03/05 07:28 PM
08/03/05 07:28 PM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 14
Quiet1 Offline
stranger
Quiet1  Offline
stranger

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 14
I printed the rules section from the F-16 web site to .PDF files.

I can .zip them and e-mail to anyone the wants them.
The zip file isn't very big, about 265KB

Send me a private e-mail at catsailor.

e

Re: Try contacting [Re: Marcus F16] #53869
08/03/05 09:38 PM
08/03/05 09:38 PM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,012
South Australia
Darryl_Barrett Offline
old hand
Darryl_Barrett  Offline
old hand

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,012
South Australia
Marcus, have you seen the sail on Peter Holdsworths new A class?? That looks to me to be the way of improving the performance of the "square top"sail for the full range of conditions, have you given thought to going down that road for the mainsail for your new Blade F16?

Re: canted hulls are forbidden? [Re: Wouter] #53870
08/03/05 10:57 PM
08/03/05 10:57 PM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 185
Shanghai, China
Dirk Offline
member
Dirk  Offline
member

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 185
Shanghai, China
Thank you Wouter!

yes please send me the word file!

that is great news for allowing canted hulls
(although homebuilders would have it much easier if they would be allowed to glue them instead of screwing them. I just heard from an australian taipan sailor that the bolts on the standard taipans rear beam shear off quite often and the front beam quite often also get cracks... so maybe something to reconsider/discuss 2008).

by the way, the first Taipan F18 who dominated the Round Texel at his first introduction was significantly canted.

The problems with the heavy F18 however is that they spend a lot of time with both hulls in the water, a state you leave with a lightwind orientated design like the A-class much earlier... Sill I believe that the Aicher+Egner F18 is canted but I am not sure about the Capricorn? By the way, the Marstroem A-Cats are still uncanted and always also are close to the front in light winds, but anyhow difficult to compare as they are very different hulls with even a much more different mast and sail than the rest of the fleet...

Having sailed uncanted and canted hulls I believe as soon as you lift a hull the canted hull is just so much more fun to sail, specially with the flat planning hull shapes of nowadays designs.

what is actually happening with the bimare f16 whose mast/sail is based on current A-class designs? Will this boat also be 'grandfathered' for a while?

In principal although I do not like so much the low cost approach of bimare it seems that this boat with a modern design might be one of the cheapiest and lightest ways to make it into the 16foot world... but with a to tall mast and no jib (so actually much less sailarea, but very reasonable decisions seen with the ventilo 20, the bim 20, marstroems m20 or the f18ht before) this boat of one very experienced mass production builder choosed definitely a different way than the current class rules are about...?

for now on, who is building f16 cat rigged big square top mainsails to fit to the standard 4.9 taipan superwing mast?

- Ashby Sails (for sure)
- Godall (as seen with agent orange)

- Steven Brewin?
- Landenberger One design?
- others?

kind regards

Dirk

p.s. any solution to give the growing China fleet access to the F16 site?



Dirk A-Cat GER 5 F-16 CHN 1 (sold) SC 6.5 CHN 808
Re: Try contacting [Re: Darryl_Barrett] #53871
08/04/05 02:35 AM
08/04/05 02:35 AM
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,451
West coast of Norway
Rolf_Nilsen Offline

Carpal Tunnel
Rolf_Nilsen  Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,451
West coast of Norway
Any on-line photos of that sail Darryl?

I would like a copy ! [Re: Quiet1] #53872
08/04/05 04:16 AM
08/04/05 04:16 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

Look into your PM mail box

Are you willing to help us out making another PDF file, one with a summary of the F16 class that we can use as a promo flyer.

I'm thinking about something along the line the Mosquito guys are doing at :

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~mosquito/mozzie_flyer.zip

We can really use a online Flyer like that.


Wouter


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: canted hulls are forbidden? [Re: Dirk] #53873
08/04/05 04:23 AM
08/04/05 04:23 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Quote
who is building f16 cat rigged big square top mainsails to fit to the standard 4.9 taipan superwing mast?


I can't speak to the question of cat-rigged sails specifically, but I can tell you that Vectorworks are supplying their Blade with Ullman sails.

Mark.

Re: canted hulls are forbidden? [Re: Dirk] #53874
08/04/05 05:10 AM
08/04/05 05:10 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

Dirk,

Look into your catsailor PM inbox.

There is a link to a website that you possible can access containing the class rules.
If that doesn't work then I'll send you a file by e-mail.

Quote

p.s. any solution to give the growing China fleet access to the F16 site?


We are building up a new website, although sadly enough it is going really slow because we need more hands to get all the work done. Both Robi and I are too limited in time to do everything quickly. So please fellow F16 sailors help us out.


Quote

that is great news for allowing canted hulls
(although homebuilders would have it much easier if they would be allowed to glue them instead of screwing them.


But you know the reason for that decision. It was either reduce our overall width to 2.30 mtr or disallow glueing of the beams. We chose to keep the F16 performance up. Something I know you appreciate because otherwise you couldn't have imported those secondhand boats to Shanghai ! The standard Taipan 4.9 is also to wide to fit into a container with the beams glued permanently into place.

Risking repeating myself, I would like to add that the F16 class rules are alot more performance oriented then many sailors understand them to be. They certainly allow more freedom then the F18's/F20's and in many respects the F16's come quite close to the freedom of the A-cats. In some cases we allow more freedom than the A-cats, example of the last are the canted daggerboards.

So often if you think that something is not allowed, then you'll find out that it actually is.


Quote

I just heard from an australian taipan sailor that the bolts on the standard taipans rear beam shear off quite often and the front beam quite often also get cracks... so maybe something to reconsider/discuss 2008).



This is known to us for a long time. Personally, I still have 8 mm bolts at the rear and they are holding. When I see stuff happening there I'll just drill out the holes and put 10 mm bolts in. That should solve the problem.

The mainbeams cracks may occure sometimes and I'm keeping a close eye on that but the Taipans I've seen personally didn't develop these cracks yet. We have been pressuring AHPC to upgrade the Taipan design in various aspects and the beams are one such thing. You will note that the builder in Asia of the Blade F16 and the Taipan F16 is using round beams both at the rear and front. This something that AHPC should consider as well. Certainly homebuilder should do that.

Actually Harry, a homebuilder near to me in the Netherlands, is using a section of a broken Nacra F18 mast that I could lay my hands on. This modification should by a sufficient answer to the possibility of developping any cracks. It also should add extra stiffness to the whole boat. Homebuilders should consider this option.

With regard to reconsider/discuss in 2008, this is design issue and not a class rules issue. Class rules allow such mods already and have always allowed it in the past. And in case of the Asian builder, he is already adressing these points. Blade and other design were already beefed up. It is now more a legacy issue of the standard Taipan 4.9's than of new F16's.


Quote

by the way, the first Taipan F18 who dominated the Round Texel at his first introduction was significantly canted.



I know, the nacra Inter-18 is also canted, it successor the nacra F18 isn't. But none of the new F18's are. Tiger never was and that design is still going strong. Cirrus never canted their boats and all in all it seems to not make a noticeably difference in the performance of the F18's.

In the F16 class we'll just leave it to the builders to decide wether they will cant or not.


Quote

The problems with the heavy F18 however is that they spend a lot of time with both hulls in the water



Not anymore. F18's with their new large squaretop sails lift their hulls rather soon especially when the crew sits lower on the tramp to clear the luff hull.

I personally think some other physical thing is prevent canting from being noticeable on these doublehanders. Possibly the enertia of the 2 persons and the boat, which is relatively much higher than the A-cat + 75 kg crew combo, is making the canting effect all but neglectable. Something is happening that just kills it.


Quote

Sill I believe that the Aicher+Egner F18 is canted but I am not sure about the Capricorn?


Capricorn is not canted. Aicher+Egner will probably try canting because of the A-cat experience and will in a few years abandon the idea as it will make their boat more expensive than can be justified by a (non-measureable) performance increase.


Quote

Having sailed uncanted and canted hulls I believe as soon as you lift a hull the canted hull is just so much more fun to sail, specially with the flat planning hull shapes of nowadays designs.



So describe to us what happens when you cant a hull ? What was the difference that you felt. Personally I've sailed a canted F18 a few times and a uncanted one and I couldn't really notice any difference.


Quote

what is actually happening with the bimare f16 whose mast/sail is based on current A-class designs? Will this boat also be 'grandfathered' for a while?



It is not part of the core F16 class anymore because it is not compliant with the class rules. But it can continue to invoke the grandfather rule for a long time to come. But then again so to can boats like the FX-one.


Quote

In principal although I do not like so much the low cost approach of bimare it seems that this boat with a modern design might be one of the cheapiest and lightest ways to make it into the 16foot world... but with a to tall mast and no jib (so actually much less sailarea, but very reasonable decisions seen with the ventilo 20, the bim 20, marstroems m20 or the f18ht before) this boat of one very experienced mass production builder choosed definitely a different way than the current class rules are about...?



Simply put; a fully optimized F16 will nail the Bim 16 with an A-cat rig around the the bouys when double handed. And Bimare has agreed to that much in writing as well. Of course when singlehanding the situation is much more equal. I don't believe for a second that performance dictated the decision to not have a jib. Sure enough the mainsail is more efficient without the jib, but that is not the same as saying that a (smaller) F16 cat-rig is faster than a F16 sloop rig. Because it simply isn't. The jib has coped alot of bad press of the last few years because of misleading claims propelled by cat-rig fans, but as a matter of fact the jib makes the rig more powerful and faster, also upwind ! Why else would the Americas Cup boat still use a jib if it wasn't faster ?

The whole issue comes down to the criterium. For a GIVEN FIXED total sailarea limit then a Cat-rig setup may be faster around a course than a sloop rig (but not always !); for a given platform setup (thus allowing more sail area to be featured when adding a jib) then a sloop rig is faster around a course.

Of course one can ALWAYS put more sail area on a boat when using a main + jib than one can when using ONLY a mainsail.

And this is where a cat-rig will always fall on its face.

When we made the F16 class rules we focussed on the best performance we could get with relative simple means. Adding jib was just one of those "simple means". We were not biased towards mimicking the A-cat setup because of emotional considerations or because we wanted to share the use of components that were orginally designed for another boat/class. Boats like the FX-one suffer from the last as well and it just produces a less optimal boat then can be had.

It is my opinion that Bim made different decisions in this respect. And we, the F16 rule makers, can understand the grounds for those, but that doesn't mean that we agree with them.

Of course equality with the F18 boats was a big goal of ours and sharing the same rig setup is a very important aspect in this.

So we parted ways.

Still rumour cirquit has it that our ways could meet up again. And the F16 class rules will not be changed, so make your own projections for the future.


[quote]
for now on, who is building f16 cat rigged big square top mainsails to fit to the standard 4.9 taipan superwing mast?

- Ashby Sails (for sure) [color:"red"] Yes for sure [/color]
- Goodall (as seen with agent orange) [color:"red"] Naturally, upon request though, otherwise you get the standard 4.9 mainsail [/color]
- Landenberger One design? [color:"red"] I seem to remember that Landy made a few sails for the Swiss Taipans, not sure wether he has made a F16 main for the superwing mast section yet. He does for the Stealth F16's [/color]

- Ian Markovich (redhead sails australia) [color:"red"] He made my mainsail and those for the first American Blades [/color]
- Ullman sails USA (Jay Glaser) [color:"red"] The new US blades will be fitted with these. [/color]

This should be choice enough I think. 4 very well respected and international sailmakers

Wouter





Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: I would like a copy ! [Re: Wouter] #53875
08/04/05 06:15 AM
08/04/05 06:15 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Hi Wouter,

I have been trying to get around to doing Flyer for promotion of F16 in OZ, found the Mossie one very popular, always carry copies to regattas to place on Notice Boards and leave on boat for people to pick up, very handy saved a lot of talking. As if that would be a problem

Was intending to condense the article I have written for OZ mags. It could be used as a template for other countries just replace local info. Will post it when I get it together probably with Tim's help he did alot on article also.

Regards Gary.

Re: canted hulls are forbidden? [Re: Dirk] #53876
08/04/05 06:43 AM
08/04/05 06:43 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Hi Dirk,

some F16 already have canted hulls. My "Altered" A class has the canted hulls it was designed as a A with.

I must say the detraction of canted hulls given current thinking. Is that with a standard hull, when your hull lifts the centreboard is canted to windward giving more lift. With the canted out hulls when you lift a hull the centreboard is actualy vertical in the water so does not give the extra lift of standard hull. What is realy needed is hull canted out, centreboards canted in, the best of both worlds?

I do agree with you that the fat bottom hulls do feel better flat on the water when flying a hull which canted hulls allow. But the difference in performance, who knows. Looks cool though

Regards Gary.

Re: I would like a copy ! [Re: ] #53877
08/04/05 08:29 AM
08/04/05 08:29 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

Gary,

If you guys could do that then that would be extremely helpful.

If we all do 1 or 2 things like that then we can get this whole thing up and running in no-time.

Any change of posting the article for that Aussie Mag as well. I would love to read it. If possible can you send me a copy of the issue that contains the article. I'll be willing to pay for it. It will become part of my collection and the F16 class archive.

Wouter

Last edited by Wouter; 08/04/05 08:32 AM.

Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  Damon Linkous, phill, Rolf_Nilsen 

Search

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 440 guests, and 92 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Darryl, zorro, CraigJ, PaulEddo2, AUS180
8150 Registered Users
Top Posters(30 Days)
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics22,404
Posts267,055
Members8,150
Most Online2,167
Dec 19th, 2022
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1