Because you said :
<br>
<br>I'd like to see as little restrictions as possible, but still trying to avoid making the class too expensive.
<br>
<br><br><br>

just a note.. Jim Boyer has stated in the past his boats are well made but "rugged" in construction.. Even his fantastic Auscat is probably over built in some respects..
<br>AHPC uses foam core (nomex is lighter) and wet layup (prepreg is lighter) with Al spars and beams.. Lets not forget someone will be bringing out PBO honeycomb cores..
<br>So if good boat building can produce an "A" at 75 kg without HT construction I dont see why the other A class builders and professional yards cant product a 16 at under 100 kg..
<br>
<br>The good am builder such as Phil should also squeak in a combo.. Given a set of female molds I would attempt a new 16.. I do know my designer is itching to have a crack at a cat..
<br>
<br>Just weighed my home built 11 foot moth hull 7.9 kgs painted.. Now how does one keep these things upright?????...Anyone considering a 11 foot cat class.. Though Im told the foils make these things more stable..Otherwise Im going to add a second hull!!!
<br>
<br>Stewart the drowned rat.. (who now owns a boat yard)<br><br>

W,
<br>how does the rating go if someone wishes to sail two up with main only? and a ganacker for downhill?
<br>Can this be accomidated inside the rules?<br><br>

hear goes
<br>
<br>Solo cat rigged genaker = 99,99 = 100 and is part of F16HP, called 1-up
<br>
<br>crew with cat rigged genaker = 112,64 = 113 (2-up)
<br>
<br>I feel boats are a little faster than this setup for Texel does weight jib rather heavy because of downwind boost this is now given by genaker so hit of leaving the jib should be smaller. Still the cat rigged 2-up should have trouble at keeping up with F16HP (103) with jibs at TR = 113-something.
<br>
<br>And especially take a hit on (long) reaches (distance races)
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

And cat rigged 2-up is not ppart of the F16HP rules now, however all you'll be doing is sailing the 1-up configuration that IS regulated under F16HP with a crew of two. It should therefor not be problem at all integrating this devision into F16 HP later when there is a need to do so. There is /was a poll on this forum wether we should persue this now and the most person asnwered "NO" that is why it isn't part of rules nw because I have doubts wether it is faster than a high aspect jibbed F16HP combined with the fact that jib adds extra workload to crew descriminating more on haNDLING THAN on my boat is btter than yours and ofcourse F18 equality. Later when the class is bigger we maybe can go past F18. The boats have the potential to do so.
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br>
<br><br><br>

Well, the same comment was heard from a other F16HP groupmember and I believe his seriously thinking about it given that this class gets going. With you and your sailing maker it makes two. Hopefully Favre (Ventilo) who is already designing a new 16 footer falls under the F16HP rules and we'll have three new boat combined with 4 grandfathered boats. Quites and instantanious formula class !!
<br>
<br>Do you think your designer could be tempted at a F16HP ? I mean being it is still at a 100 kg and all ? Still would be the lightest 2-up cat around ! and have the smallest wetted surface of all as a result.
<br>
<br>If you interested in 1-up genakering the F16HP (with a gen of 17 sq. mtr !!! ) Than maybe you should contact Phill in time for it loks like more aussies are going that way.,
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

just a thought.. rather than have a fixed weight .. what about having a floating boat/hull/platform weight.. ie start with a set limit.. 100 kg or whatever.. then have the clause..
<br>all boats at the "worlds" are weighed (as they need to be anyway) without correctors..
<br>the average then becomes the new weight for 2 or 3 years.. provision may be placed that hull weigh may only drop by 2 kgs per 2 or whatever set time.. This allows for the gradual reduction in class weight without obsoleteing the fleet overnight.. a mix of development and restraint .. <br><br>

seems strange..
<br>if the cat rigged two up are slower than the sloop rigged then shouldnt be a problem.. Unless its the "look" of the class your trying to create.. If so we should all go off and purchase hobie 16s..
<br>
<br>as for the less work agrument.. One could use this to ban rachet blocks pulleys ect..
<br><br><br>

17 sq meters.. I sail on a single traped Javelin class skiff http://www.javelins.org which has a 20-23 sq meter kite.. That means one trap on a width of 1727 mm (5'8 in the old terms)..Some of the larger skippers (90-105 kg) solo their Javs and use the kites up to 15 knots.. I will measure up the luff this week to see what its like.. But the prod sticks out 1.8 meters from the stem.. The stick is shorter tho..
<br> 17 sq meters is what the 29er and cherubs use.. Both are kids classes..
<br>
<br>The International 14s have 33 m2 kites dont even ask about 12s and 18teens.. Prods on a 14 are 2.7 meters long.. 12s have 3.3 plus meter poles..
<br>yes I understand the differences in a skiff kite vs a cat kite.. Really wild are the new I14s on foils.. <br><br>

Wouter,
<br>
<br>Thanks for answering that quickly, I agree with your answers, except one point, the weight issue.
<br>
<br>First Your calculation of a extra light Taipan, I think it’s quite a bit too enthusiastic calculated, let’s go to the details:
<br>
<br>Carbon mast -4 kg: Then you have a real light carbon mast, but ok.
<br>
<br>Carbon Rudderstock/rudder/boards -5kg: I don’t think you can get this reduction.
<br>I don’t have the message anymore from Phil, I hope I remember it well
<br> I once read the article about the paper tiger carbon boards, very nice indeed, but the difference is not that big.
<br>The boards had a smaller section as for a taipan; as I calculate it for the same section as a taipan, the reduction would be about 15%;
<br>Please correct me if I’m wrong at this, Phil will know it for sure.
<br>
<br>My boards are 1.9 and 2kg; so that gives a reduction of 0.5kg total.
<br>For the rudders/stocks: they also are already light at 5kg total, but let’s say You can get 1.5 kg reduction with carbon
<br>
<br>Spi pole + Boom –2kg:
<br>My Boom=1.44kg, Suppose in carbon it’s 70% of it’s weigh, and you get a reduction from 0,432kg.
<br>Pole: 70% of 2.5kg gives 0.75 kg
<br>
<br>Dynema trapeze/pole wires –2kg:
<br>My total shrouds, including trapezes wires are just 2.5 kg! So I don’t think you can get more than 0.5 kg.
<br>
<br>This gives a total reduction of about 7.5 kg,
<br>This means 111-7.5=103.5 kg.
<br>
<br>So still 3.5 kg’s overweight.
<br>
<br>That’s just my Taipan, I think we also have to ask John Pierce (Stealth), as designer maybe he can tell if a stealth for example could be brought at 100kg, including spi. (=15kg reduction, and the stealth has already a carbon mast.
<br>I suppose it will be very hard to achieve this.
<br>
<br>If this is true, 2 boats are already obsolete, at least the stealth, and for the taipan you’ll have to invest quite a bit..
<br>
<br>I’d also like to hear John’s opinion, for me I think 100kg, excluding spi or 105 kg with spi would be the absolute minimum.
<br>
<br>Keep on the good work,
<br>
<br>Geert
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br><br>

>> I will measure up the luff this week to see what its like.. But the prod sticks out 1.8 meters from the stem.. The stick is shorter tho..
<br>
<br>If you could that ! Thanks
<br>
<br>
<br>>>17 sq meters is what the 29er and cherubs use.. Both are kids classes..
<br>
<br>Huh, Taken from Bethwaite.com (The designer !) and ovingtonboats.co.uk (licenced builder and dealor)
<br>
<br>(Source data at end of post)
<br>
<br>Bethwait 29-er (designer) 9 sq.mtr. at 85 kgs
<br>Ovington 29-er(builder/dealor) 15 sq.mtr at 70 kgs
<br>Ideal weight 110kg to 145 kg
<br>
<br>Bethwait 49-er (designer) 15,3 sq.mtr. at 94 kgs
<br>Ovington 49-er(builder/dealor) 38 sq.mtr at 70 kgs
<br>Ideal weight 145 kg to 175 kg
<br>
<br>First I see a bad case of inconsistancy, almost like nacra. And they call this one design. You probably can explain the weight difference but how do you go from 15 to 38 sq. mtr. The keyboards keys are not even near.
<br>
<br>And than, Sorry Steward but your asking for it, and than these are the heaviest kiddies I ever saw. You must grow them usage in Aussie land. And as far as I known the Javelin is rated slower under Victoria than the 49-er and about the same as 29-er.
<br>
<br>Now I also looked up some other skiff and Musto goes 15 sq.mtr. and is almost a perfect square. The lasers don't go beyond 15 sq.mtr. 2-up.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>The International 14s have 33 m2 kites dont even ask about 12s and 18teens.. Prods on a 14 are 2.7 meters long.. 12s have 3.3 plus meter poles..
<br>
<br>And the designer himself of some of the most succesful 18 ft skiffs has said that he found that area is rather unimportant with respect to luff length. He found hardly any speed difference in flying a small area kite or a big one as long as the luff lengths were the same. And thus far the Victoria rating doesn't show skiff to be faster than cats (exception 18 ft skiff, but these are about 6 mtr. wide ?)
<br>
<br>In greece all skiff were doing great in no air to light medium air. after aal skiffs including the kiddy size genny skiffs went swimming.
<br>
<br>And on top of that 49-er is 94 kg's ! not far from 100kg F16 HP. Seems to me that those 12' , 14's and 16' are light weather boats or that sailing them is more about keeping it up than sailing fast. Sorry again. But that is what the figures tell me and past experiences have shown to be true.
<br>
<br>>>yes I understand the differences in a skiff kite vs a cat kite.. Really wild are the new I14s on foils..
<br>
<br>I bet they are !
<br>
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br>Source data :
<br>
<br> Designer: Julian Bethwaite
<br>29-er
<br> Length: 4.45m
<br> Beam: 1.77m
<br> Weight rigged: 85kg
<br>Sail Area Mainsail 7.5sq m
<br> Jib 5sq m
<br> Spinnaker 9sq m
<br> Approximate time to rig: 15mins
<br>Recommended combined crew weight is 110kg to 145kg and suitable for both male and female sailors.
<br>
<br>
<br>Ovington builder/dealor
<br>Overall Length 4.45 m
<br>Waterline Length 4.24 m
<br>Beam 1.77 m
<br>Fitted Hull Weight 70 kg
<br>Mast Height above sheerline 6.25 m
<br>Main & Foresail 12.5 sq.m
<br>Asymmetric Spinnaker 15 sq.m
<br>Designer Julian Bethwaite
<br>
<br>
<br>49-er
<br>
<br> Length: 4.99m
<br> Beam, hull: 1.69m
<br> Beam, wings: 2.9m
<br> Hull weight bare: 61kg
<br> Hull weight with wings and fittings: 94kg
<br> Draft, max: 1.5m
<br> Mast, above sheer: 8.5m
<br> Spin. Pole extended: 1.7m
<br>Sail Area Olympic Rig Mainsail: 15sq m
<br> Jib: 6.2sq m
<br> Spinnaker: 15.3sq m
<br>Sail Area Sport Rig Mainsail: 12.75sq m
<br> Jib: 5.3sq m
<br> Spinnaker: 13sq m
<br> Approximate time to rig: 20mins
<br>Suitable for both men and women, the 49er offers fast, exciting sailing in a weight range extending from 145kg to 175kg (combined crew weight).
<br>
<br>Ovington boats builder/dealor
<br>Overall Length 4.99 m
<br>Beam 2.9 m
<br>Hull Weight 70 kg
<br>Main & Foresail 21.2 sq.m
<br>Asymmetric Spinnaker 38 sq.m
<br>Designer Julian Bethwaite
<br>
<br><br><br>

>>seems strange..
<br>
<br>On the other hand I have no definate numerical proof of this, so I withdraw my statement.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>if the cat rigged two up are slower than the sloop rigged then shouldnt be a problem.. Unless its the "look" of the class your trying to create.. If so we should all go off and purchase hobie 16s..
<br>
<br>Indeed, but for now I have to let this go or it will spread my attention over to many seperate topics. Maybe for later ? The jib however is an important part of F16 HP 2-up it is used for equalization and to make the F16 HP very comparable to the F18 and iF20 so that handicap racing between these class will be very fair and dependable. Dropping this will in my opinion take away much of the class attractiveness. But It definately could be something for the future !
<br>
<br>>> as for the less work agrument.. One could use this to ban rachet blocks pulleys ect
<br>
<br>He, he, he , okay ! =)
<br>
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

will come back to you with the luff length .. But to give you some idea.. the maststep is back from the stem 1.85 meters. Prod is 1.8 meters long and the stick is 6660 meters (for luff measurements)..
<br>
<br>As for your other arguements.. the Javelin and 29er are the same length.. But the 29er has less sail..Javelin has about 15 sq meters of working sail and a 22 sq meter kite.. The 29er and Cherub have approx 9 sq meters of working sail and both carry around 15 sq meters of kite..
<br>
<br> Hence the speed advantage to the Javelin over the 29er.... I believe the latest 29er VYC/NSWYC rating is 100 compared to the Javelins 96ish.. (about 2 rating points quicker than the 505 but this is before the larger kits was accepted by the 505s). The 49er is quicker but has a width advantage and has twin traps.. Its at the moment 3 rating points faster than the I14.. Given a few years myabe this will change..
<br>
<br>Bethwaite vs Olvington.. yeah well.. Monkey could never keep his facts straight..
<br>One 29er/49er web site shows the working sail area while the other gives the combined sail area.. Howevrer 49ers having only 15 sq meters of working sail I find unbelievable.. They would have about 18 at least.. Bethwaites site also give the bare hull weight the Oliv sites give sailing hull weight.. 49ers are NOT high tech.. Monkey likes to make money!!! Its quite a basic layup.. gell coat over epoxy and glass over corecell.. Carbon is only used in the mast step and rigging load areas.. These hulls need to be made in areas where high tech isnt available..
<br>
<br> C&P from the Au Cherub web site
<br> Most Cherub sailors are aged between 16 and 28 as it is mainly an intermediate
<br> class. Most sailors come out of junior classes such as the Flying Ant, Flying 11 and
<br> the International Cadet as they find the Cherub is the only class that provides the high
<br> performance of a skiff class with the cost advantage of a restricted design. The social
<br> aspect of the class is also a bonus. The Cherub has a wide spectrum of weight
<br> carrying capacity , this ranges from the very light 110 kg combined crew weights to
<br> the heavies of around 150-160kgs. The 9th World Champions, Tony Dillon (skipper
<br> 73kg) and David Gibson (crew 85kg) who sailed Rocky and Bullwinkle, are the
<br> ultimate proof that the Cherub can be sailed successfully by heavy crews.
<br>
<br>The local 29er crews are all 13-16 years old.. They graduate to 49er when their dads can afford to fork out for one...
<br>
<br>Went swimming? Sheesh cant you guys sail?? 49ers & 14s are fully powered up at 8 knots dropping power at 15.. 12s are fully powered up around 5 knots.. Scary is watching a 12 dumping sail two on trap when the water is only just past glass.. Due to thier multiple rig setup they can carry power well into the 25+ knot brackets.. 18s ditto.. Remember 12 have 12 foot plus prods and a 30 foot mast with their light air rigs.. 18teens have had 18 foot plus prods and their number one mast is about 35 foot.. Not sure what the latest restrictions are on 18teen prods..
<br>
<br> Aussie and Kiwi kids are probably just better sailors thats all *winks*..
<br>
<br>
<br>But back to the 16hp.. The fleet I will probably be sailing against will be mixed bag of "A", Nacras & Tsports.. But if I can keep up with the As I will be happy..<br><br>

one for you
<br>
<br>http://www.sailingsource.com/cherub/aero.htm<br><br>

Wouter,
<br>
<br>I think it's good to set a limit at 9 meter
<br>
<br>Geert<br><br>

Geert,
<br>
<br>>>Thanks for answering that quickly, I agree with your answers, except one point, the weight issue.
<br>
<br>Okay, well that leaves only one point to discuss further. I won't react as quickly this coming weeks however for I have visitors staying the week.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>First Your calculation of a extra light Taipan, I think it’s quite a bit too enthusiastic calculated, let’s go to the details:
<br>
<br>That is was, I admit that.
<br>
<br>**** Carbon mast -4 kg: (you agreed)
<br>
<br>****; as I calculate it for the same section as a taipan, the reduction would be about 15%; my boards are 1.9 and 2kg; so that gives a reduction of 0.5kg total. (Lets assume that your estimate is correct.)
<br>
<br>*** For the rudders/stocks: they also are already light at 5kg total, but let’s say You can get 1.5 kg reduction with carbon (I go with you again)
<br>
<br>**** Spi pole + Boom –2kg:
<br>My Boom=1.44kg, Suppose in carbon it’s 70% of it’s weigh, and you get a reduction from 0,432kg.
<br>Pole: 70% of 2.5kg gives 0.75 kg
<br>
<br>I would like to have the density of prepreg Carbon, but judging from my stunt kite carbon poles the carbon tudes are about 1/3 of alu wehn dimensions are the exactly the same including wall thickness.
<br>
<br>I would say boom and pole = reduction of 3,96 * 2/3 = 2,64 kgs or double your reduction. I'm quite sure but I will check my claim.
<br>
<br>**** Dynema trapeze/pole wires –2kg:
<br>My total shrouds, including trapezes wires are just 2.5 kg! So I don’t think you can get more than 0.5 kg.
<br>
<br>Ohh, believe me the reduction is that big. The Dogbones together are heavier than the 3 mm dyneema line and plastic handle bars. I could also replace my oringinal bungee cords 5mtr. in total of 5 mm diameter (needed to avoid slapping) by 3 mm bungees. Honestly, 2 kg on 2,5 maybe alot but 1,5 you get definately for the dyneema trapwires setup is less than 1 kgs in total. Try the dyneema, you love it. No slapping, no bungee cord pulling heavily on your dogbone, no wear on your sailspockets.
<br>
<br>>>This gives a total reduction of about 7.5 kg,
<br>>>This means 111-7.5=103.5 kg.
<br>
<br>I would like to adjust that by -2,5 kg's as discussed. resulting in a 101 kg Taipan F16 HP.
<br>
<br>Now, lets say that someone gets the bright idea of replacing his forebeam at the same time he buys the carbon mast. The profile is the same and he can easily ask for 8,5 + 2,5 mtr = 11 meter carbon mastsection with a reinforced lower 2,4 mtrs. He'll pay about the same in production cost just a little added cost due to more reasin and carbon and saw of the bottom 2,5 mtr to make it into his forebeam. Now he will have a below 100 kg's Taipan.
<br>
<br>So I think the point is not if this minimum weight could be achived be readily available means. I think this point is important.
<br>
<br>A professional builder like Boyer and BIM can do these adjustments without must effort. I think this setup is state of the art and should therefor be placed as such in the F16HP
<br>
<br>
<br>>> That’s just my Taipan, I think we also have to ask John Pierce (Stealth), as designer maybe he can tell if a stealth for example could be brought at 100kg, including spi. (=15kg reduction, and the stealth has already a carbon mast.
<br>I suppose it will be very hard to achieve this.
<br>
<br>
<br>And this is where you have a good point ! I see this a the only problem of the 100 kg's minimum weight. We
<br>'ll continue on this.
<br>
<br>
<br>I’d also like to hear John’s opinion, for me I think 100kg, excluding spi or 105 kg with spi would be the absolute minimum.
<br>
<br>OKay, Best is to get John P. opinion. I coute him before where he indicated that he thought 100 kg was resonable, but I don't know wether the Stealth could be made 100 kg's. MInd you the Stealth was designed have a optimal crewweight of 145 kg's so the Genaker equipement is already corrected by the 150 - 145 kg = 5 kg crewweight difference ! Spo overall over weightness now is 9 kg according to Texel measurement.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Keep on the good work,
<br>
<br>And the constructive discussion ! It helps the forming of the F17HP alot ! And yes I will continue the work. Hell, if this F16 HP takes off than I have a good mind of modifying my T to be a perfect F16 HP in order to function as an example.
<br>
<br>And thank you very much for contributing !
<br>
<br>Greetings
<br>Wouter
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br><br>

Sorry to have missed so much while out of town essentially the last three weeks.
<br>I know it's probably too "late" to vote but here are my thoughts-
<br>KISS- Keep It Simple Sailors! I think the simplest rules (ie. predominantly maximum and minimum measurements) are the best, but realize we need SOME restrictions to begin and maintain a viable class.
<br>Mast- Any material, max height 9 meters (perhaps we need a max girth also just to "fend off" any outrageous wingsails/solid sails?? I would put this measure quite large to allow some development however).
<br>Weight- I think 100 kgs. is acceptable right now- We could always do as the "A"'s do- Set the minimum weight for some period of time (say 5 years) then to be reviewed by the class (even though this is true, of course, for ALL the rules!).
<br>Beam- I think 2.4 meter is acceptable since it incorporates all the present boats but 2.5 meter would be the most I would go. I WOULD set a max beam measurement though (at least for the hulls/foils- If we allow racks, which is OK w/ me, then I think 2.4 meter is adequate for the hulls, racks could be any length then).
<br>Spinnaker pole- Material open, design open, max. extension (again, for now to get the class "off the ground" and allow sailmakers some limits to develop within) 0.8 meters forward of bows. No limit on height above water (it will sort out).
<br>Spinnakers- 17 sq. meter max, some max "draw height" but I would go for length UP the mast rather than "vertical height" since I feel this could be contentious and hard to "control" since mast rake will directly affect and length up the mast can be easily measured. Again, I think this will promote sailmaker interest/involvement in the class.
<br>Materials- open.
<br>Maximum length- 5.00 meters, with Stealth (and any other CURRENT designs we haven't met/don't know about already out there) "grandfathered" in. 5 meters is already MORE than 16 feet and includes all but the Stealth and if we start pushing it soon we'll just have a modified "A" class ala the M 18.
<br>Hydrofoils- We probably should address this since the "A" class just did- Don't know the outcome of that since voting is still open. While I think this would be "neat" and may in fact be the wave of the future (no pun intended) I am afraid it would lead to a bit of an "arms war" and would have "regional" effects in that certain venues/areas it may make a large positive difference while in others none so it might "fragment" the class nationally/internationally.
<br>One up/two up- We haven't REALLY addressed this BUT I think it's a boon to this class to KEEP this as an option for ALL boats "involved", this includes "new" designs. I'm not sure how to make sure this happens other than to specify all boats must be capable of carrying some minimum crew weight (140 kg?) and all must be "rightable" by 60 kg person w/o assistance (this to inspire confidence in sailing solo and developement/implementation of solo righting systems/boats).
<br>
<br>That's my thoughts-
<br>
<br>Kirt T 4.9 #159<br><br>Kirt Simmons
<br>Taipan #159, "A" cat US 48

Kirt,
<br>
<br>I really like the idea of 2.4m beam and racks.
<br>
<br>Phill<br><br>

We believe we can reach the 100 kgs weight for production stealths, the boat was originally designed with no particular weight target as such we compromised in a few areas, main beam, current weight 7.5 kgs! (no dolphin striker), rear beam current weight 4.5 kgs, these were cheap available sections at the time, we also put coremat (instead of foam) in the floor of the hull to make the boat tougher when mishandled, I think just changing these bits of the boat alone will probably get us to the weight we are looking for.
<br>
<br>We seam to be moving towards agreement on most topics, to summarise it would appear that the framework will be something like this:
<br>
<br>Max length 5.00 m
<br>Max beam 2.5 m
<br>Max mast length 9.00
<br>Min weight 100 kgs
<br>Max spin 17 m (18sq m???)
<br>Max draw height on kite ? 8.5 m ??
<br>Rated main area (as per Wouters calcs
<br>Rated jib area (see above)
<br>
<br>Boats to rate the same as F18 (I think we need to pick a rating system to compare its a bit too open to make it compare on all systems, I vote we use texel this allows us 18sqm spin with no penalty over 17sq m it also allows any length of daggerboard whereas for ISAF you must put in the length and area for the boards.
<br>
<br><br><br>

The texel formula for spinnakers works as follows,
<br>boats up to 16 ft length, max spin 18sqm
<br>boats 16 - 18 ft length, max spin 21 sq m
<br>boats 18 - 20 ft length, max spin 25 sq m
<br>
<br>f16hp will fall into the 2nd catagory so we can set spin up to 21 sq m without any change to handicap, we might as well do this, we currently sheet the spin just behind the shroud with a17.5 sqm spin which is fixed 7.35 m above mast footI dont think that the sheet posn would change much if the draw height went up by a metre.<br><br>