Hi All

The Taipan Catamaran Association of Australia, is about to have a postal ballot to vote to change the Mainsail, the changes if approved with a two thirds majority, will;

Measurements in Brackets would be DELETED.()

d. MAINSAIL

ix.the top of the sail shall not exceed (400)950mm measured perpendicular to the head.

x.(at a point on the leech 1000mm down from the head, the nearest point on the luff shall be not more than 790mm distant including bolt rope - DELETED)

xi. Measured to include bolt rope:
At 1/4 leech point, the nearest point on luff shall not more than (2090) 2015mm distant
At 1/2 leech point, """""""""""""""" (1820) 1780mm
At 3/4 leech point, """""""""""""""" (1260) 1410mm
At 7/8 leech point, """""""""""""""" 1095mm

xii. The distance from head to clew shall be not more than (7940) 7950mm

xiii. The distance from the clew to the tack shall be not more than (2150) 2100mm

xiv. The foot round, when smoothed out for measurement, shall be a maximum of (75) 50mm.

15. MAST

f. Measurement bands shall be painted round the mast such that the inner distance between the bands is not greater than (8050) 8100mm. Measurement bands of contrasting colour, minimum 25mm wide.

I can only assume from what I have read elsewhere that the association is still fairly split, but I guess we will find out, as this would be my first year racing in the class, I was thinking that maybe I should sit out the vote, but I will be talking to friends and find out the they're thinking.

Regards

Matt

It is sunday morning and a club race will be held in about 3 hours so I got a little time right now.

Here are my comments on the changes, not that many care but I give them anyway. ! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />





950 mm is a really big head for the Taipan mainsail and the superwing mast top. Personally I feel the mast top is not stiff enough to support such a large increase in area there and it will require alot of mainsheet tension to keep it in. Moving the hound fitting up next to this change may be a welcome change in this situation. I personally expect the head on our 16 foot boats to converge to about 800-850 mm over time.

On the other hand the rule is a maximum and its limit is set large big so it is no biggy if it is approved this way. It will not really prevent the sailmakers from finding the optimum headsize.





Obviously this rule is superflucious when a (large) head size is a given. It is therefor not a rule needed to force equality between boats.





I would have done away with this rule altogether and just have ruled on a total mainsail area. The foot length is pretty much a given because of the boom setup and the distance between the beams. The head size is chosen. With a fixed maximum mainsail area in between these two measurements, there is really NOT alot of freedom in chosing the batten lengths. Therefor there is no significant advantage to ruling on these width of the sail at these points. I've this rule is needed for other reasons then I hope that the widths are defined such that.

-1- the old Taipan sails still measures in
-2- the new mainsail measures in as a F16 sail (= max 15 sq. mtr.) and is very close to 15 sq.mtr.
-2- there is sufficient freedom for the sailmaker to tweak the way his leech runs and thus allows them to find an optimal mainsail design.

It appears the first 2 width measurement will disallow old style Taipan sails.





I never believed in this rule, but I understand that it can only be deleted when the total area of the mainsail is limited. Sailmakers will then use this leech length to get their sails to measure in. Additionally it is the place to take area out when your sails over time stretch to much and become too large. Again I would say, just rule on the max area of the mainsail and then delete this rule. You'll end up at less rules and the combo of head size, foot length and luff length will then implicitly limit this leech length to a max distance anyway.





In my perception this is pretty reasonable. Although it might rule out some older style Taipan sails. I would have kept it at the old distance and then, naturally, fix the maximum area of the mainsail. More often then not this foot length will be reduced to not pass this maximum sail area.





Why rule on a detail like this. Ohh I see again because the rules do not limit on the total area allowed so all edges have to be ruled upon in order to prevent sailmakers from putting more sail area in.





That is a good modification. With the new 12:1 cascading systems you can pull alot harder on the luffs and as a result they will come lower when cranked on hard.





Personally I find it weird that a first year member would not using his vote. You are a class member and have a right to vote. There is no reason why a long time class members has more rights to casting his vote then a new class member.


In summary : I think ruling on the max. sailarea allowed will be a better upgrade as that will allow the deletion of several rules and garantee that :

-1- All older Taipan sails will measure in
-2- Compliancy with F16 class is garanteed
-3- The sailmakers have sufficient freedom to find the best mainsail design in the way of handling and speed.

The latter point IS important as the same thing is happening in your competiting classes like the F18's, A-cats and also F16's. But limiting yourself too much you risk fighting these classes with one arm tied to your backs. It is not wise to do that.

With kind regards,

Wouter

Are any rule changes considered for the jib setup ?

That is where really some gain can be had. Mostly in handling though not in performance but still.

Wouter

If the Taipan changes its sail areas wouldnt that mean they are no longer a grandfathered class?

The mainsail is the only change being considered and voted upon. The class will also be looking at all aspects of the class, and developing a five year strategic plan.

The Taipan is stronger than ever here at the moment, mainly I think, to events put together by the class association, I am looking forward to the upcoming season. There are no secondhand boats on the books at the moment, so things are looking good.

My right to vote is exactly that, without getting into an argument, I will also say it is my right to sit it out, I'm still not sure which way I would go, and theres no box to tick that says 'maybe'. As I said I will talk to friends of mine, who have been part of the class a lot longer than I, and see what the general thoughts are. I have not seen or sailed with the new sail that has been developed for trial, nor will I have the opportunity to try it.

Regards

Matt

I can't comment on this in an official sense, only the new governing council can.

I can state however that the current grandfather classification was given on the specs as they were in jan 2002. The underlying line of thinking was that any change from those specs will require an new grandfather decision unless the changes themselfs are F16 compliant.

But the GC will have to reply to this officially. I don't expect any reply however before the Taipan class has officially approved these changes.

Wouter

I understand.

I shall leave it at this then. I don't think the changes are going to be approved anyway, especially not if the feeling is that the class is now "stronger then ever". Not if past history is any indication. I'm sorry to say this but I fear it is just one of those truths that are eternal.

Best of sailing enjoyment,

Wouter

Your orgional post is not clear if the proposal needs 2/3 of members or just those that vote to be passed. If it is members, abstaining is effectively a "no" vote.

I don't sail the class and only keep an eye on it for interest and thus don't really care either way. From what I have seen, the new sail is good for the class in so many ways. OD is a great principal however as time marches on, Controled evolution will lower the chance of once popular classes falling by the way side. Re Tornado, Laser, Fireball and even the Hobie 16.

Tiger Mike

Don't think it would bother them as over here, they are not F16s

Hi All

Sorry if not clear, 2/3 majority of votes recieved by the 20th October 2006. So I would say that if I were not to vote, it would not count either way. The sail if approved would not be allowed for use in championship events until the 2008 National Championships.

I can't see any reason that would indicate it would not go through when the class is enjoying its popularity.

Thanks for your message ALIVE, it seems that exactly what you've written, is difficult for some to understand <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Matt

there are some that sail as F16s.. or switch between the two as desired.

Very very small number...... and even then they have not fully optimised themself to do so.

I was a big fan of them adopting the F16 concept and raced in the first F16 Nationals in Australia about 3 or 4 seasons ago...... But a very large majority off the Taipan class and members are not interested, so that is where it has ended. The standard 4.9 class is doing very well over here.

You know guys, I've written up several posts in reply and deleted them all.

If the Taipan guys are so determined to avoid any links to the F16 class and if they are doing so well, then why are we having this thread about Taipan class changes on the F16 forum ? Indeed, why did a Taipan class member choose to create this thread here in the first place ?

Don't they have their own forum, that is attended by their "large majority that is not interested", where these things can be discussed ? What do these changes have to do with F16 at all ?

I hate to say it but one reason that was key in the decision by some Taipan sailors to break away and form the independent F16 class was to get away from the endless bickering.

Do us all a favour and don't reintroduce the conflictuous Taipan class rules discussions on this F16 forum. They have been had for years now and nothing ever changes.

If the Australain Taipan sailors want to initiate closer cooperation with the F16 class than I believe that they may expect themselfs to be very welcome, the door was always open and I doubt if that will ever change in the future. But if they really don't want that then have them do us all a favour and have them use their own class communication channels, avoiding the F16 ones.

I'm sorry to say it but I'm personally pretty fed up with this Aussie Taipan class.

Wouter

For what it is worth..

I put the measurements given into Sailcut, and a rough model gave me a sailarea of appr. 13.5m2. This is not exact, as luff round and some tweaking of the leech can alter this, but it looks like the mainsail would measure in under F-16 rules?

Superwing mast area = 1.4 sq. mtr. so 14.9 sq. mtr. in total

That could be full F16 compliant.

Which is not really surprising as the prototype mainsail of these dimensions is in basis an F16 mainsail. It was developped for the Taipan F16's by AHPC and I dare venture that it was partially developped to be fitted to the new capricorn F16 too.

But still the Taipan class apparently decided to mask its F16 origins as much as possible. I really don't understand why. Just copy the F16 rules on the mainsal and they can immediately tap into a score of existing F16 mainsail designs by Ashby, Landenberger, Irwin, Ullman and many others. Including up to date online price info and order numbers.

Why confuse the sailmakers with two totally difference class rule definions of basically the same mainsail ?

Wouter

Very good point Wouter, this was not the place for this thread to be posted. Most Taipan sailors do not post here as they do not want anything to do with the F16 class. a few Taipan sailors have, but the baulk of the Taipan F16 talk on this forum and the Taipan forum has come from over seas sailors wanting to bastardize a very strong class in Austrailia because they like the platform..... Insinuating we should change because that is what you guys want.

I am sure the AUS Taipan fleet are pretty fed up with you too.

I was on the beach at Forster Australia when spinnakers were brought up and voted upon several years ago and yes their were some very colourful comments made about you. It was voted against and thrown out that quick it will unlikely be brought up again. I was in favour of the change, but because I was a Tornado owner / sailor I kept my mouth shut. I was not aware of the best interests of the class and was selfish in my thinking.

Those few 4.9 sailors who were in favour have since moved onto the F18s which would have happened anyway because they were chasing international quality sailing.

The 4.9 class in Oz is a lot like the H16 class as far as it is quiet often used for dads to teach their son / daughter at a young age, how to sail whist still owning a high performance boat and having the ability of taking it out by themself if they like.

Adding kites to 4.9s would have watered down the fleet and reduced fleet numbers, because in Australia we don't have the market to sustain so many classes. Because of the decisions made several years ago, the class is still thriving today and remains the quickest 16 foot non spinnaker boat around.

Hi All

Well i've got my nose out of joint a bit. But I'll apologise for placing this subject on Wouters Forum, thinking now it may have been better placed on the Open forum.

Don't get me wrong I'm very interested in the F16, and enjoy reading the posts, for my benefit as a homebuilder/ and rigger.

I was simply pointing out that the Taipan has made changes to its sail plan, which as you've probably worked out would fit under F16 rules, I thought you'd be happy Wouter. The trial sail has been designed in conjunction with Greg Goodall and I don't think you need to a rocket scientist to work out, he would have been looking at what would fit under F16 rules.

Anyway again I apologise.

Matt

No need to apologise. As an F16 sailor, I'm interested to know what the Taipans are up to.

As has been pointed out, I think it's a shame that having settled on a shape that appears to fit closely within F16, they didn't just adopt the F16 sail spec. This would have benefits for both classes. It takes a lot of time and effort to optimise a sail to a particular specification, and if we had a common spec sailmakers would only have to do this once. A common spec also means a larger market for the sailmakers which can only result in better choice and better value for the sailors.

Paul

Very valid points Paul.

Well please don't appologize Matt,

It is not you who has anything to appologize about.

There is just a considerable history between these two classes and indeed as a result I can't stop rolling my eyes when I read Taipan 4.9 specific stuff.

I will fully admit that I got problems with the Taipan OD class policy and indeed not always are they based on judicious examination of the points. I've been down this road lots of times and truth be told, Stephen is right mostly. Although people blame me for lots of stuff I'm really not responsible for. The Fosters issue, for example, was actively and fully opposed by the Australian F16 rep and myself. It was a loner action by some Taipan sailors unlinked to the F16 class. So don't blame us for their mistake. We knew better. We sought cooperation between the classes to reinforce one another. But we always collided with the hard core group in the OD class who resisted anybody and anything not sharing their extremely conservative views. Finally we just gave up and "flipped the bird" in their general direction.

I sure as hell wasn't going to get my behind handed to me on the modern day European race course because some Aussie dad felt it in his gut that he could't handle a different cut mainsail when teaching sailing to his kid on some backwater. Because that was the issue it finally came down too. They were willing to totally sacrifize the international penetration of the Taipan design and leave the non-Australian sailors unsupported in order to not offend the gut feelings of some recreational sailors.

But lets leave that in the past. I'm intrigued (I almost wrote "amused") that the Taipan class is now considering an F16 mainsail upgrade which is not officially called an F16 mainsail. Deep down in the core I think it is a good development. I still don't think it will get passed though, but I love to be proven wrong.

But now matter what written above, don't feel you have done anything wrong personally Matt.

Wouter