Rules changes

So I'm reading at Cat Racing News something about "all spins illegal"... Couldn't quite get the drift of what they're talking about. Can anyone clarify what the World Council decision was about spins?

I think I understand the main and jib issues with SI using illegal cloth for sail reinforcements or something. Doesn't seem like that affects most of us, at least us without SI sails.

Now I also read something about "paint" being illegal now... Whats up with that? I was thinking of using an epoxy paint on the bottoms of my hulls cause its much harder than gel coat and would stand up to abuse/trailering/launching better. But that is sounding like a bad idea now! What is the ruling on paint on boards/rudders?

Just looking for some clarification...

Linky: http://catsailingnews.blogspot.com/

Sloan, this has to do with the appearance of cross cut sails, made with two sail cloth materials, technically not in compliance with rule G.3.4.b specifying uniformity of legal sail cloth material. (Personally I am not sure why there is such as fuss over uniform cloth, so long as the cloth is legal, but so be it.

The absolute definition of the rule makes all spinnakers similarly illegal. Why? As specified by the strictest definition of the rules, all F18 Spis include reinforcing cloth at the grommets, and therefore, are technically constructed out of two dissimilar sail cloths.

If the clarification of the rule is anything like other recent decisions, the outcome may be more murky after the necessary ruling discussion that will be forthcoming...If they aren't the most clear, at least, our ruling body is amusing!

Here is the link to the letter.

Letter to F18 Europeans Jury Chair

Sensational journalism from my perspective. A different title could have been "F18 Class Updates Rules" and the story could discuss ambiguity that has been identified regarding the reinforcement cloth used for spins as being constructed out of more than one material.......boring! However, that does not get readers' attention.

Thats what it looked like to me too. I was more concerned with the "no paint" comment since my boards and rudders are painted and I'm considering painting the hulls as well.

I guess the Cat Racing site is trying to emulate SA...

The issue is quite serious, the world council has decided to change class rules without understanding the impact of their actions.

They have been advised by well informed sources that their actions would be ill advised and yet they went ahead with the changes regardless.

For example, there are quite a number of boats in the fleet that have been painted and with this new rule they are currently not considered F18's anymore!! The class did not consider the effects of the rule when it comes to refurbishing an older boat, So now you can only spray gelcoat on it... Micht as well spray lead on the thing!

The sail cloth issues are much the same, there was substantial advice from industry professionals that was clearly contrary to the decisions taken, and now we have this whole thing blow up and the class has gotten itself into a real mess.

I really hope it can be rectified ASAP for the good of all F18 class members.

We could use a bit more clarity and foresight on rules, and a bit more transparency over the process. It seems like 'something happens', no one seems to know what is happening, the better part of a year transpires, then a decision is issued on the rule challenge that lacks the clarity everyone wants.

Simply put: I'd like to see an agenda with topics, forecast discussion, allow a skype dial in (or something when a discussion is open), and then for the ruling body to issue clear mandates on rules changes, and post them in a timely way. That's not too much to ask is it?

If you listen to some of the officers in the Class, yes, that is too much to ask.

Things are not particularly copacetic on the Council right now. I'm hoping that we can work through somethings over the next couple of months...

KARL F - DO NOT open the spray gun or the black paint!!!!

Please return these items ASAP.

There is a lot of pressure currently to achieve exactly what you are asking for. More support will help, but it looks like we will have a review of the process and the recent decisions as well.

Remember, no rule is valid in the class until ISAF certifies it and publishes it on the sailing.org website and that realistically wont be until the middle of 2012 at the earliest. So there is plenty of time for sanity to prevail!

If you don't agree with the recent decisions, let your Class representative know so they can pass it on to the WC.

And if you want more info you can PM me.

John and Dave, PLEASE HELP ALLOW ME TO PAINT MY BOAT!

Hi Kris

You may be right now, but you need to read the whole post. I did not detailed the wording as the minutes are still not published. So I will wait for them to be online , as I remarked, then I will detail every aspect of it.

If not I'm talking without a reference for readers to confirm/check themselves. I cannot and wont publish the Minutes until published, but it is Important to note that this info was encouraged in the WC to be distributed, and published in a french website even before all NAs had their copy, so you'll get the idea of what is going on... full details without sensational journalism to follow as I clearly stated on those posts.


Cheers,
Martin - CSNews.

US F18 Sailors, what are your opinions on this issue?

Painting should be allowed. Gel coat is expensive and unreliable. Having an epoxy paint will make repairs and upkeep much quicker, easier and cheaper. Not to mention the ability to touch up our boats on site.

Who do I draft a more detailed letter to on this issue?

Talk about a sour taste in my mouth before even sailing the new boat!

Cheers,
Karl
Team Kwjiboat

What is the motivation behind this painting rule? Is there an advantage to using it over gelcoat (apart from the weight)?
When will the full minutes be available?

The painting rule could be given the name "the phantom rule" it was specifically designed to stop the Phantom. As some details of the new production Phantom became clear it was detailed that the new boat would be painted in an epoxy paint which gives a very high quality finish and in the matt style it looks unreal too.

A scare campaign went through the WC claiming that painted boats would have a considerable advantage. They declined to back the claims up with anything like facts.... it reminds me of this classic from Will Ferrel global warming

Paint is just a better solution, as mentioned above, its easier to repair, lasts longer and is lighter than gelcoat. There is no speed advantage at all so there is no justifiable reason to ban it.

But the same could be said for the 2 types of cloth in a mainsail rule too, every independent sailmaker in the class agrees that it should be allowed and it increases the life of the sails and makes them cheaper. So again, why would you ban it?

If there is no performance advantage to a painted boat, then I have no issue with it. The weight savings of a painted boat is a mute point. The boats must come in a minumum weight anyway and most of the new(er) boats are at or right near minimum weight, so a lighter finish over gel-coat offers no real advantage in that respect.

If the only advantage to a painted boat is in maintenance, repair, and upkeep then bring on the paint. If there are performance advantages to paint, I think everyone would be in agreement to keep paint banned.

Martin -

CS News does excellent coverage of beach cat racing news and reporting....it is very much appreciated!!!! Thus my surprise at the headline relative to the non-sensational (pre-minutes) content on spins. I can imagine the ethical challenge that someone with your resources and interest in the class to know the forthcoming news and yet be restrained from giving it the attention that it duly deserves.

The F18 rule set obviously works. The challenge is keeping it simple yet responding to "loopholes/ambiguities" and "new technology/processes" in a manner that welcomes innovation within the semi-development concept but does not ignore abuses to the rule set nor disenfranchises the class members.

I would assume if two cloths are not allowed in sails than we are all rule breakers for having windows in our mains and jibs. Technically that would be a different cloth. The sad part about all of this is that there are people who are trying to find the loop holes in the rules for the sole purpose of exploiting them thus creating all of this drama.

+1

Karl, if you'd like you can send the letter to me and I'll forward it to the WC. However, as John indicated there are issues so...

Anyway, I'm not sure if or when the the topic is going to come up before the council again. The way I hope it will work the is WC will reopen the issue. At that time I will send out ballot basically saying "allow paint", "don't allow paint" and I will cast our votes based on what the USF18 class wants.

Playing devil’s advocate here, the issue could be one more of perception than reality. I would imagine a painted boat would be marketed to say that weight has been removed from the ends and moved to the CG making the rig more stable than conventional gel boats (my boat is better). I'm not saying this is real but I have seen fleets get hung up over less, besides someone had to be the contrarian. Okay Andrew, you're up.

I don't know when the minutes will be released.

Wouldn't concetrating the weight lower on the platform be an advantage? Moving the lost weight from the gel coat above the hulls seems counterproductive.

The current rules say:

The body of the sail shall consist of the same woven and/or laminated ply
throughout with the exception of the window which may be different.

The marketing would be that the weight has been reduced at the the ends (bow and stern) to reduce pitching. My assumption is the boat would be at weight or maybe a little under and the saved weight on the ends would be moved low and to the middle of the hulls during the construction process not strapped onto the crossbeam post build.

The argument could also be made that the weight saved with the paint has been transfered into making the boat stiffer. So, now the boat would be marketed as, it pitches less because... and it's stiffer because...

Here's the larger issue; there are two opposing philosophies at work on the Council - either voting is weighted by the number of members in each national body (the current rule), or all national bodies are weighted equally (i.e., one vote per country). Currently, the US would need a coalition of many other countries to make a change - three or four of the EU countries carry three- to five-times as many votes each as we do. The result, as we saw with the ridiculous vote to ban any F18 that gets selected as Olympic equipment, is that a two country EU voting bloc can become insurmountable. So while I greatly respect Dave's consistent effort to determine the US position on matters like paint and sail materials, it is unlikely we can make our position matter at the Council level under the current constitution.

I don't mean to sound discouraging or quash discussion - I think Dave is doing it right and we're lucky to have someone with his conscientious approach. I just want us to debate with a clear eye toward not only establishing a reasoned position, but also how to adopt that position in a meaningful way.

Actually, I think (my opinion) the larger issue is that most F18's don't even the slightest clue as to how the rules are made, are changed, when, where, why or how. (Not snarky, its the truth...)

How does the process work? Do we have a unique opportunity to fix anything in Long Beach next year?

As John said, there are some balance of power concerns in the current structure and they lead to the kinds of situations we see here now. There are 4 countries (FRA, ITA, NED, GER) that control half the votes of 22 countries total. So if those 4 want a rule, then they get it...

There is no polling of their members to decide what position the general membership wants to take on issues and the information supplied to the voting members is also not complete or verified. So the decisions are compromised and influenced unduly resulting in the mess we see today.

As for the actual arguments on the rule changes, below is an extract from the analysis I did on the recent class rule changes. I have completed this for the sail cloth issues as well.

There are 2 arguments presented to the WC regarding the use of paint:-
1. “fairing and painting to an ultra-high finish it is a very labour intensive and expensive process”
2. “there are popular paints and coatings in professional sailing that have been proven to give a performance advantage”


Modern paint systems allow builders to spray into the mould in the same way as gelcoat and they can be sprayed on the hull as a combined filler/topcoat. The painting process can be quicker overall than the total time to finish a gelcoated hull, hence there is a cost saving using some of the modern paint systems.
Additionally there is nothing in the rules to prevent any manufacturer or competitor from fairing and preparing their gelcoated hulls to an ultra-high finish. As an example in 2009 Herbert Dercksen and I faired and prepared our Nacra Infusion to what could only be described as an ultra-high finish. The boat was longboarded, filled and the hull surface was professionally prepared at considerable expense. My point here is that preventing painted hulls does not prevent fairing and preparing hulls to a very high standard. There is no feasible way for the class to prevent this expensive practice other than to encourage manufacturers to produce high quality finishes that do not require post delivery work to rectify manufacturing blemishes.

The second point (claiming that Epoxy is advantaged over other paints) is not backed up by any facts or references, There are 3 main suppliers of paints in the yachting industry, Resene, Alexseal and Awlgrip. Each has various products including epoxy, polyurethane and mixes of epoxy and urethane. No one product that has proven to have any performance advantage. This is evidenced by the spread of different products in the worlds top yacht fleets. For example the 10 existing AC45’s are painted in products supplied by all three suppliers, the same spread of products is apparent in the TP52 class. There is not one product that is dominant and as such the overwhelming evidence is contrary to those claims.
To put it simply: Just because somebody heard that product X was better than product Y is not justifiable grounds for the class to ban something that is standard practice in the boat building industry.

The new rule has effectively prevented the construction of boats in wood-epoxy and there is no provision in the rule for existing boats that are painted.
Just how older boats are refurbished now is also a mystery, spraying gelcoat onto a 5 year old F18 is not feasible as any industry professional will attest.

Then our council is ruling by fiat. If that's true, the council may be doomed by a thousand internal cuts, and defined by growing apathy and disaffection with the ruling process.

The description sounds like a recipe for systemic governance failure, and not in the long-term interests of a fast growing class interests worldwide. In my opinion, by-laws need to be connected with the world-wide interests, including minority representation, in order for the body sustain relevance and act on behalf of both the shared goals and differences of the constuency. This should change, if nothing more, than for the good and sustainability of the council.

Hi, here some facts to complete:
the voting power during the last WC, were not held by few european countries but: 10 national association representing 871 members (74% of members), 94 votes (70% of vote)

One french member (or Ned or Ger, or Ita and so on) is as important as one sailor from another country in the WC. Not more, but also not less.

The point to improve is the participation by Skype or whatever for far away representative to expose their positions.

After complete exchange most of the decision are unanimous.

Franck the frog.

Franck,

The following nations were present at the WC meeting:-
FRA
NED
HUN
GER
GBR
IRL
BEL
(all EU nations)

Agenda comments (not actual proxy votes) were submitted by
ITA
SWE
ESP

There were no agenda comments or proxy votes recorded for any non European national class association.

The class constitution states very clearly:-

4.4 At the meetings of the World Council, decisions shall be reached by those present by approval of over 50% majority, but members unable to attend shall pass proxy votes to the President of the IF18CA. Each National Chairman shall have votes as laid down in 9.6 of this Constitution, the President shall have the casting vote in the event that their in not a majority.

The word "shall" is defined by ISAF as a mandatory compliance. So without all National class associations submitting Proxy votes any decision at the WC meeting was unconstitutional.

Hi Macca,
If I read well , imagine that Estonia (very little country in north Europe, 10 F18 and one measurer) do not pass any proxy votes, the WC can't have any move ?
Guess what ? It doesn't work like that. The verb "shall" sure is mandatory but for the members of the WC if they don't attend the meeting.
"...but members unable to attend shall pass proxy votes to the President of the IF18CA..."
Sorry for my poor globish
Franck

Franck,
It works like this: as the constitution is written all national member countries have to submit proxy votes for the meeting to be valid.

Doesn't matter if those countries have 1 member or 100, they must submit the proxy for the meeting or no decisions can be made.

If the constitution said that proxy votes "may" be submitted then it would be optional and the recent WC meeting decisions would be perfectly legal under the constitution.

That is how we ensure that all member countries are aware of the issues and they have time to decide on the issues at hand and submit their proxy votes accordingly.

That is why its important to ensure that the information circulating to WC members and their national membership is accurate and balanced in its presentation.

Macca,

You can have another way to understand the text. I respect that. Accept we're not agree. Then apply:

11.1 Any dispute in relation to National F18 Associations, eligibility to race, the interpretation of this Constitution and By-Laws of similar matters, other than any dispute as to the interpretation of the ISAF Racing Rules of Sailing or any protest in the jurisdiction of the Race Committee, may be referred to, together with all relevant facts, in writing to the World Council whose decision shall be final and binding.

How paint on the hull can kill F18 ?

According to builder (we've some in France) only the material; gel coat cost 35€ for a F18, high tech paint,
is more than 10 times more expensive : 400€.

Also the construction process is better adapted to the use of gel coat. (direct in the mould) leading to simpler manufacturing and with lower cost. .

Painting needs to prepare the surface (as a car with mastic) and heavy equipment to finish.
You can use gel coat with painting pistol just diluted to repair as well as paint.

More important to me is that we all know that chemical industry has no limit.
If we accept paint on the hull the certitude is that tomorrow morning appears « magic paint » and also « magic price ».
And then last but not least how make difference between paints? Destructive test?

Franck,

There is no interpretation needed for the term "shall" ISAF has already defined it for us and it is a mandatory item. The WC must follow the terms set out in the constitution and as such the decisions taken last month are no valid.

Regarding 11.1, The Australian association has submitted a motion to the WC to set aside the rulings from the recent WC meeting and re-hold the meeting within the bounds of the constitution.

Franck,

A little knowledge is very dangerous....

I note on your own news website that you have the following news on the Cirrus F18:-

"Le Cirrus R est un F18 conforme aux évolutions récentes de la jauge. Les coques ont une finition gel coat. Pour l’anecdote le rapport entre le coût de la matière gel coat et une peinture high-tech est de 1 à 10. Les contraintes de fabrication avec la peinture sont aussi plus importantes que le gel coat: mastiquage et cabine de peinture comme une carrosserie de voiture."

Translated:-

"The Cirrus is an R F18 in line with recent developments in the class. The shells have a gel coat finish. For the record the relationship between the cost of the raw gel coat and a high-tech paint is 1 to 10. Manufacturing constraints with the painting are more than the gel coat: glazers paint booth and a car body."

Yet Mischa's brand new boat is painted.... So you should be very careful what you write.

As for your claims about costs to produce in paint they are equally misguided:-

It is possible to spray newer style paints directly into moulds in the same way as gelcoat, and then the finishing time to produce a hull is actually reduced compared to gelcoat hand finishing which is very labour intensive and slow.

I am not sure what paint you have been quoted, but at 400 Euro material costs it would be 3-4 times more expensive than the very best paints used on Americas cup boats!!

An actual material cost to paint an F18 in top of the line paint is 118 Euro. So perhaps you should review your position...

Have a look on our site www.f18.fr (sorry it's in french), you can check, with all due respect, you're wrong .
You can also find our 2011 members list about 280 sailors, they all pay that explain europe financial crisis, (for 423 F18 sailors noticed by the french MNA) and the open database of F18 certificate.

No arrogance, but please consider we are also democratic than you are, and with the same spirit.
We are also huge fan of F18, with the same difficulties, perhaps more experience, because we faced questions since 1994.

Also (european song): 200 members in Netherland (country just a little more bigger than brooklyn), 150 members in Germany (90% of the coast frozen 10 month on 12) and so on to Hungarian (last world), Estonian etc..., they are all F18 sailors, like Australian, American, Argentinian etc.. not more and not less than you are.

Franck the frog
Capricorn C1,5 (all C2 parts except hull)

Macca,

A you noticed It was not a post upon Mischa's specific boat but about BCM production boats, which are finished with gel coat.

You can believe or not that opening the door of painting now, is as dangerous as allowed carbon in daggerboard.
Except that we can decide to put a limit (1,40 meters under the hull ) to daggerboard and check it quite easily.

How make difference between paints ? No arm, no chocolate means here: no paint, no problem.
The main question is not today's technology or price, it's to prevent chemical research and runaway with no limit.

Franck

Franck, I believe you are advocating the position of 1 member = 1 vote?

If so, I fully agree and with the technology available today it is well within the bounds of feasibility to enable every member to be fully aware of any proposed rule changes and then vote on them in a fully informed manner.

If this were the case, we would not be in the mess we currently see. There is no way the so called "technical report" on paint would have passed inspection by the members and then there would have been a proper review on the matter completed before any votes were made.

Franck,

So you are happy that a BCM std boat is class legal, yet Mischa's Orange boat is not?

The reason it is painted is because he wanted an Orange boat (I think so he could be easier to spot OCS!) and its not possible to make that colour in gelcoat unless you spend a lot of time and money to get it the right colour, then it will fade a lot quicker and will need to be refurbished sooner (normally you would do this with paint, but that is now illegal, so you have to gelcoat it and add around 5kg to the weight... genius!!)

Perhaps the class should ban coloured hulls, it is much cheaper to only have white gelcoat in stock and it prevents any performance questions arising... As we all know the RED ones are much faster than the rest

the text:
"but members unable to attend shall pass proxy votes to the President of the IF18CA"

I do respect what you think, but be as kind to accept they could be a discussion. The "shall", full mandatory no doubt, obviously (even for a non native english spoken) apply to members not to the WC.
You can't say I do not do my duty so the decisions are invalid. Too easy.

Here you contest decisions taken by representative of 74% of worldwide members, in a very formal way.
So the same people will read carefully the 11.1 and those representative of 74% members see that the WC decide on this dispute and " whose decision shall be final and binding."

For me this it looks like a "formal" dead end and a "formal" waste of time.

No particular emotion, just go to bed, thank you It was interesting. Orange means BFD yesterday ;-(

Actually, it's not that bad ...

not that good either!!

I am certainly not an industry professional but regelcoated my Infusion last winter. It is certainly feasible although labor intensive to remove the old gelcoat. The finish is not what I would consider to be a professional finish but that is due to two mistakes that I made which are both a result having not done it before. I feel very confident that I can refinish the boat with gelcoat and have an excellent finished product. I cannot however attest to the weight difference as the boat has not been weighed as of yet.

Colin, Did you spray the entire boat or just the bottoms?

If you did the entire boat the weight gain from resurfacing is between 3 and 5kg

The cost to re-gelcoat an entire hull professionally is approx 3 times more expensive than to paint the boat and the finish will never be as good as original factory or that which can be easily achieved by painting.

I did the entire boat. I believe the finish of gelcoat can be every bit as good as the highest quality paint job, but you are 100% accurate in the effort required achieve that finish versus paint. I redid my boat in gelcoat because I didn't feel that "I" could produce a decent looking finish in paint (lack of spraying experience) and with gelcoat I could always sand any runs out.

One interesting note about weights. A gallon of gelcoat weighs about the same as a gallon of paint. I don't know if there is more transfer when spraying gelcoat versus paint due to the viscosity differences. I refinished a Hobie 18 in paint a couple of years ago. At the time I worked for a car dealership that had a bodyshop and paint booths so it was easy to slip the painter a 100 dollar bill and some paint and let him spray it. We used more material on that boat then I used in gelcoat on the Infusion. With the paint we had a sealer, than a primer, the paint, and finally the clear coat.

To be perfectly honest, if I had it to do all over again I would do gelcoat again. I don't have the money to pay a pro and I don't have the skills to do paint myself, at least not at the level to achieve results better than I can with gelcoat. 3-5kg's does suck though.

To paint an F18 from scratch will use about 3.5 litres of paint, The coverage with paint is much better than gel, so its less than half the weight of gelcoat by the time you are done.

To do what you have done and spray over an existing surface will use about 1.5-2 litres.

new style paint systems allow you to paint in one shot, greatly saving weight, time and effort.

Hi Kris

As promised my take on facts of the sensational news I published last week:
http://catsailingnews.blogspot.com/2011/12/f18-rules-fact-sheet-illegal-spinnakers.html

The goal is to bring some light on wc decisions and current (in my opinion) rules mess.

ISAF published three complementary documents (and not only one ;)) you can check here:
http://www.sailing.org/2129.php

-first is interpretation, in order to prepare the second one:
-second is amendment
-third is class rules up to date

The second text (amendments2012) is the key one. The main point is paint on hull.
ISAF text is clear and confirmed last world council clarification:

"The following amendments to the Class Rules have been approved to be effective 21th February 2012.
Rule C.7.2
Amendment: Add new rule to read as follows:

C.7.2 MODIFICATIONS, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
(a) Holes not bigger than necessary for the installation fittings and passage of
lines may be made in the hull.
(b) Sealing strips of any suitable material for centreboard/daggerboard slots are
permitted.
(b) Routine maintenance such as painting and polishing is permitted without re- measurement and re-certification, providing that the intention and the effect is to polish the hulls only.
(c) Each hull shall have at least one inspection hatch. All other fittings are optional

Rule D.2.3
Amendment: Delete rule and renumber accordingly.
Rule D.3.1
Amendment: Add “polyester gelcoat” after “glass fibres” so the rule now reads
as follows:

D.3.1 MATERIALS
(a) The hull shells shall be built from polyester or vinylester resin, glass
fibres, polyester gelcoat, a core of PVC, balsa or felt, the combination of wood-epoxy, injected plastic, which shall not be altered other than locally for fittings, and passage of equipment and normal reinforcement. Epoxy glue is permitted for joining components. Every material that is not expressly permitted is prohibited.

END"

In a few words: boat maker have to used polyester gel coat, paint can be used for repair only under responsability of sailors (that's why ISAF moved the item in the class rule).
So painting an entire hull, isn't "routine maintenance" and obviously breaking the rules.

So the class gets itself into a total mess and takes the band aid approach..... very nice.

And painting an entire hull can certainly be classified as routine maintenance.

No mess here, all boat makers with the same rules.

WC confirmed by ISAF now make it crystal clear.

Rules can change but with one year notice, in order to be fair.

Painting after repairing a hull is allowed without re-certification ISAF words "providing that the intention and the effect is to polish the hulls only."

You can now ask ISAF if painting an entire hull is routine maintenance for an ordinary club sailor...

I just did.

No problem.

ISAF just confirmed F18 World Council and say no entire hull painting but polyester gel coat finish only.
Not less than three files in 2 days: interpretation doc to prepare the amendment and updating class rules:

http://www.sailing.org/2129.php

Then you ask ISAF: "hey, look my entire hull painted, it's ok because only routine maintenance, isn't it ?"

Good luck indeed Macca... ISAF has been crystal clear on your last asking (the first document), it's hard to believe that they now will say "Yes, what we write is without any importance, it's not big deal, do what you want..."

This rule (as other one) can be changed but with one year notice, in order to be fair.
All the boat maker playing same game.

Franck, I have discussed the matter with ISAF and they have confirmed that painting hulls post manufacturer is within the class rules.

I agree Macca, it's written

"Routine maintenance such as painting and polishing is permitted without re- measurement and re-certification,..."

please notice the second part, it's also interesting

"...providing that the intention and the effect is to polish the hulls only."

When you get a written ISAF answer just share it.

You have to polish the entire hulls after you have sanded all the gelcoat off.

Or you simply build the boat with no gelcoat, then paint it after its built as the normal maintenance procedure.

Painting a hull after its built is "the normal maintenance procedure"?

as non english native, I look for a dictionnary definition of routine (the word used in the rules) :

1.a customary or regular course of procedure.
2.commonplace tasks, chores, or duties as must be done regularly or at specified intervals; typical or everyday activity: the routine of an office.
3.regular, unvarying, habitual, unimaginative, or rote procedure.
4.an unvarying and constantly repeated formula, as of speech or action; convenient or predictable response: Don't give me that brotherly-love routine!

in this case:

I wash my hull, take-off the stickers organisation is routine maintenance.
Repairing a hole is also routine maintenance every time you have to do it.
Painting an entire hull just after its building is obviously not a routine.


But this is not a word issue.
This rule (as other one) can be changed but with one year notice, in order to be fair.
All the boat maker playing same game.

Franck,

You can think what you like, but I have discussed he matter at length with ISAF and it's perfectly legal to paint the hulls after manufacture.

But that does not appear to be what the intent of the rule is. According to the rule, boats are to be manufactured with a gelcoat finish, paint is to be used as a repair/maintenace solution, not as a means to refinish the boat to gain an perceived advantage. (if you are so insistant that the boats be painted instead of gelcoat, other than a performance advantage, what could your motivation be)?

+1

There have been painted F18's from the very inception of the class. Paintis not a new method to surface coat an F18.

How could you use gelcoat to surface coat a wood-epoxy f18? This build method has been approved since day one and yet some people in the class seem to have forgotten

This is not an acceptable reason to not follow the intent of the rule. The rule says gelcoat, so why are you so insistant on paint.

Its pretty simple, We have a production method that uses paint. we can lower our production cost with paint and we believe its a better product.

The Intention of the class was to allow cost effective racing to all members, And from day 1 it has been possible to paint your boat. Nobody has ever used gelcoat on a wood boat, they paint them. If you are building in a high labour cost country then you would use paint. Its saves time and therefore money.

There is no difference in performance and there is no cost increase, so why would anyone want to stop it?

Plywood-epoxy F18's are illegal unless they are made of balsa.

I am with Macca. I do not see what the "intent" of the rule matters when it would have been perfectly easy to write them otherwise. If painting a boat after manufacture was not allowed there are various wordings that could have made this clear.

As far as I am concerned, ambiguity is laziness and when rules are written with ambiguity it can only be interpreted as intentional.

Cheers,
Karl

D.3.1 MATERIALS
(a) The hull shells shall be built from polyester or vinylester resin, glass
fibres, polyester gelcoat, a core of PVC, balsa or felt, the combination of wood-epoxy, injected plastic, which shall not be altered other than locally for fittings, and passage of equipment and normal reinforcement. Epoxy glue is permitted for joining components. Every material that is not expressly permitted is prohibited.

Looks like wood-epoxy is allowed.

And so if the class has approved the wood-epoxy method of building, how do they think you can apply polyester gelcoat to such a hull??

You have to use paint!!

Paint is not a new development in the class, its just an issue now because a painted boat is winning.

If, as you argue, paint is such a superior product to use to finish boats, why are the major players in the class (Hobie, AHPC, Nacra), not turning out painted boats instead of gelcoated boats? I am not trying to be argumentative here, there must be a reason and I am really interested to know what it is.

The existing large manufacturers have developed their build methods down the gelcoat pathway, as there is no performance difference it makes no sense for them to change.

We started with a clean sheet of paper and as such we were able to choose the best, most cost effective method available. Nacra and AHPC produce their boats in low labour cost countries, whereas we are producing in Europe and as such we are trying to minimise costs via lowering the time spend per hull. Paint is proven to be a quicker method to complete a hull as you can spray all the seams whereas gelcoat takes about 8-10 hours per hull to finish the seams.

Wow, I have read that rule wrong for years. I thought it was trying to say that only a "wood" epoxy could be used. I even asked for a clarification once about what epoxy would count as "wood" epoxy. Yet another example of poorly worded rules.

That seems a bit unfair Macca, so far it has only won one event and it was sailed by someone who could make a bathtub go fast.

Here is the origin of many wrong thinking.

Indeed, a painted or gel-coated boat is not winning. Never.
The sailors did.
By their talent and work.

The spirit of F18 is to have very close boat in order to have close fight in real time, where sailors skill and decision make the difference.

What is the sport interest to win if the boat is faster ?
F18 isn't Formula 1 racing.

Though it is always a ordinary commercial interest to make people believe that new brand are faster.

It's, of course not, a question of person. For me, to be with or against anybody isn't the path.

On the paint question the very last TC (long and hard) work report show that there is not consensus between manufacturers.

In the same time ISAF has confirmed the World Council (WC) decisions of november, that everybody can check by crossing the minutes of the WC and the last ISAF publication.

ISAF is a big machine so they process step by step and in a very logical way: written interpretation (cleaning that what WC ask), amendments and then updating class rules.

http://www.sailing.org/2129.php

It is always possible to ask for interpretation of the interpretation done by ISAF, but I can't see why ISAF people would change their mind in a few days. There is no more ambiguity. By the way ISAF changed the chapter of the maintenance item in order to stress that "routine maintenance" is under sailor responsability and add polyester gel coat in the list of materials.

ISAF is the third institution,in the process of decision: it is a team work.

First step is the Technical comittee (TC), composed by boats and sails makers and collecting point of view from industry people: Goodall, Boulogne, Soldano, Lauriot-Prevost, Contreas, Rogers, Melvin, Jary...

They give advices but it is the WC which decide and vote.

WC, the second step, is composed mostly by F18 sailors and elected by F18 sailors.

For the WC, nations aren't the key for the weight of vote.
One French/Italian/Ned F18 member is not more important but not less than one US, Australian or Argentinian F18 members.

That is important, because on one hand you have (respectable) commercial interest, on the other hand: class of F18 owner/members interest.

Indeed, guys who paid their boat, do vote the rules.

Please read the Don Finlay (TC Chairman) text which explain that better than I can do with my poor english:

http://tinyurl.com/7vpfmz6

The main reason of the F18 success is that we're sailing F18 for fun.
And only Champions win, not the boat.

Franck Tiffon
WC french representative -www.f18.fr-
F18 sailor since october 1994 (White Hawk with gel coat ;-)
Capricorn F18 FRA 327

The answer is clearly stated in the Nov 2011 WC minutes.

"The view of the committee is that it is not desirable at this point to have boats supplied with an epoxy finish from the factory.

It was discussed that epoxy coatings have some potential advantages for the class, particularly for maintenance. But it is felt that the current risk to the class of having boats marketed and sold with 'premium' epoxy coatings is undesirable, and a sufficient risk to the class right now to justify strict control."

That statement in addition to Don Finlay's (TC Chairman) January article about preserving the value in the existing F-18 fleet makes it clear why the the action was taken.

It presumes that the sailors do not see through the marketing spin and would cause an overnight devaluation in the existing inventory of boats. A by-product is that it protects the gel-coat based builders' market share.

Unfortunately, the painted boats were in compliance with the rules before the recent revision. It smacks of protectionism and assumes that the racers are "lemmings" to the latest fad and that we need to be protected from ourselves. If the information was out that a gel-coat finish is no slower or faster than an epoxy finish, the percieved threat would be invalid.

Please excuse my ignorance, but does "epoxy finish" or "Premium epoxy coating" equal paint?

Nobody really knows!!

If you ask some of the top designers in he world they will say that there is no difference between paint of any type, and gelcoat in terms of performance.

Gel coat is the simple way to be compatible with polyester resin and get a good finish straight from the mold. Boat builders have used it since they started making fiberglass boats. Gel coat is not compatible with epoxy and most items made with epoxy elect to use a post applied paint system.

For boats with unfinished deck seems like the H16, a lot of dinghies etc gel coat works great. The finish on the gel coat if done properly will match the finish on the mold. Minimal to no finish work and the costs are kept low. The new modern cat hulls almost all have a lot of post finish seam work done to the hulls. This is very labor intensive and can be a good application for using paint in place of gel coat. The cost adder in production here is the finish work on the hull to remove the seam, the use of gel coat or paint makes no real difference to the cost of the end boat. If the class wants to consider their rules to be a cap to costs, then the styling is the issue not the material.

A paint shop will tell you it is better to use paint and a traditional fiberglass shop will prefer to work with gel coat. Each have their issues as far as technique and finish. The big problem a lot of shops are facing is regulation. It is illegal to spray styrenated resins (gel coat) in many places around the world. Brush application of gel coat is not an acceptable alternative to any production shop. We can all move our shops to Asia, and most have already but eventually things will catch up there as well.

The new better paints weather a lot better than gel coats. This might be a nice suggestion as far as longevity of used boats. If someone is seriously considering that paint is going to provide some huge performance gain then they need to look at another hobby.

Chemical industry or fluid mechanist are able to express an opinion on this question of performance.

"In results done by Otago Flume Laboratory they found that its satin finish gave a 15% less drag coefficient that a high gloss surface. "

May be it's only marketing, like the following quotation from a recent F18 flyer concerning a point about paint performance:

"saving 3 kg per hull compared to gelcoat allows to increase the laminate and internal structure of the hulls in order to improve both stiffness and durability."

Here the key point is the fair competition between boat builders. That's why rules can change with one year delay notice.

At least there is a doubt. TC people did not find consensus. Here I do admit in the doubt the World Council choose a conservative way for the clarification (no extra rules).
Way which is just confirmed by ISAF.

Franck, Normally intelligent people can see marketing when they see it.

Nacra also claims that by Infusing their hulls they are stiffer and stronger, but I have yet to see you bash them for such claims.


Besides, if we can save weight by using paint, and then use that extra weight to build stronger hulls that last longer its better for customers, and that is what the class management should be encouraging!!!

What is of great concern to the members of the french association is that you claim to represent their best interests, but its very clear you are abusing the voting power vested in you by those members to push your own agenda.

If you could buy a boat that is cheaper, stiffer and more durable because of the use of paint instead of gelcoat then that has to be a good thing for the class.

If you are banning paint because the large manufacturers in the class won't change their production methods and will therefore have a more expensive, less stiff and less durable boat than a new brand entering the market then this has to be a bad thing for the class.

Catsailingnews blog has a lot of chatter on this at the moment with Alex Udin claiming he is being targeted by the big boys.

The more I see of this saga the more I'm starting to believe it. He may, or may not, be the most unlikeable person in sailing. That doesn't give the association the right to enforce rules to target his boats.

Franck, I've asked you this previously. Why is it ok to grandather the Spitfire when they obviously breached the rules, yet the Sail Innovation sails were banned immediately, even after being approved by association measurers?

And with this ruling from ISAF, does the association plan on banning the current Phantoms? If so, will the association also be banning all other boats finished with paint?

Franck - your claims about paint improving performance (because their marketing says so....) so they need to be banned can be easily fixed.

In the same way you have approved material for sails, hulls etc. Simply provide a list of approved paints that are to be used.

Problem solved. http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/icons/default/smile.gif

Can the F18 association please, please, please go to a back room for 6 months and re-write the class rules so we can stop the confusion of constant amendments.

I just point out, like others, contradictions and double speech.

Infusing hulls doesn't seem to break F18 rules.

The basic question here, is (any as you affirm) paint do not increase performance vs gelcoated hull ?

At least there is a doubt. TC people did not find consensus. Here I do admit in the doubt the World Council choose a conservative way for the clarification (no extra rules).
Way which is just confirmed by ISAF.

I try to expose ideas, decision and people work (TC, WC and now ISAF), that's why I do precise to be crystal clear I'm part of it.

Macca, I'm sad that each time there is no ideas or fact in front of mine, you use personnal attack.
Would you be as kind as to expose what do you mean by "own agenda" ?

I've been elected two times (2006 an 2009) and you know what ? As treasurer, I'm the bad boy who always ask for money ;-)
In 2006 they were 90 french members, in 2011 there is 280 french members.
This is a team work success and passion shared, which make me happy.

So please Macca, let's stay in ideas and fact field. F18 deserved that.

Hi Gav, I just say there is at least doubt about paint improving performance and some double speech does not help.

As doubt exists on this question, WC choose a conservative way for brand new F18.
And the new fact is that ISAF confirmed this approach (painting for routine maintenance is allowed but in the customer chapter) and in the same move improved the wording.

About rewriting I do not believe it is a fast and secure way.
Most of difficulties we have to face now are from the rewriting in order to fit to ISAF standart (ERS).

In the TC, Andrew Gallagher and now Don Findlay do great job with all the involved technicians, and they are also open to outside advices.

Here we focus (a little too much ?) ont paint but many others issues are already solved
-length daggerboard limitation,
-carbon allowed parts,
-crews weight limit,
-mainsails in one ply

and many others are on the table of the TC and soon to be precised (boat and hull centreplane, boom, mast fitting, luff and leech lines...).
I'm very impressed by this team work.

Except length daggerboard and crew weight all is already in the class rules and need just to be clarified.

Indeed since Corecell/Shockwave the new trend is to not changed the rules when the rules are broken.
Till now, grandfathering and derogation (RSS87) allow F18 customers to used material that has been certified.

For me the great next move is to have a builder certificat of compliance.
Given with the bill to the customer, it will not replace the measurer work and the certificate which transform a 18 feet catamaran into a magical F18.

<**** agenda against one builder.

Neither Hawk, Alado, Cirrus, Tiger nor Mattia (nice pinky gel coat) were painted.
May be you can afford exemple of the day one, I've found none.

Just an extract of the 2002 rules, looks like paint or epoxy paint were not allowed:

"For the construction, only the following materials are authorized : polyester or vinylester resin, glass fibres, core of PVC or balsa or felt, the combination of wood-epoxy, injected plastic, steel, extruded aluminium profiles of constant section, which shall not be altered, other than locally for the fixings and passage of equipment and normal reinforcement.
Every material that is not expressly permitted, is prohibited.
Carbon is only permitted in spreaders, rudder blades, dagger boards, blocks, cleats and tiller extension. Epoxy glue is permitted for joining components."

Check there: www.sailing.org/2129.php

But that is the past and we have to look forward (5 years is a long time ;-)

Present is: still no consensus on this issue in the TC, (the last report is this week old), more than 95% of the F18 fleet is with gel coat finish.
At the last november WC, a majority vote for the clarification (no new rule) confirmed by this week ISAF interpretation:

"Question 1:
In reference to class rule D.2.3(a) "Routine maintenance such as painting and polishing is permitted without re-measurement and re-certification" - Does this rule allow new boats to be supplied with a painted finish?
Answer 1:
NO."

Future is wide open, propose an amendment to TC, then the chain of vote will work from national association to WC. In France I'm sure some will support such painting amendment,also I know some will be against.

Concerning price I feel (show me I'm wrong) that all prices are very similar for brand new F18, from "big" or "small" company.

Mattia are painted. Confirmed by Enrico himself.

I had a wood epoxy boat in 2005, painted.

I know of more small run production boats as well, all painted.

Many refurbished boats in Paint as well.

I'm done with arguing a mute point with you Franck, you have displayed a clear bias against paint regardless of the mounds of evidence to support paint presented to you.

If you truly have the best interests of the class at heart I suggest you look at the facts, and remove your personal grudge.

Your French class members will appreciate it

I do agree the last Mattia is painted. I was considering about old one as you speak about the past of F18.

We never waste time when we expose some point of view or when we have a confrontation of ideas.

For me the key point is not to be for or against paint. Indeed, I've got no personnal interest in this issue.

My main goal is to communicate about the facts and the process, as precisely as I can, in order to explain recent decisions (WC, ISAF) made about F18.

Franck,

Nobody is confused that you are against paint and even more so, you are against sail-innovation.

In the previous pages in this thread you have been presented with clear information that there are no performance advantages or cost increases with paint, yet you simply ignore it.

I can only hope that the French class members are aware of your misuse of your voting position and they act accordingly.

Talking about costs, how much does an SI Phantom cost anyway?

Andrew, sorry to say this: here you're wrong. Please, again; stay in ideas field.

I'm not against sail innovation. Believe it or not, it's not a big deal.

More than this, find a word of me which show that my very own opinion is against paint... The game was not only to present facts different (or in response) than yours.

In this thread you find that a lot of F18 sailors asking for informations. So, I just talk about and explain what did happen. As you see the theme (rules changed) is not only about paint.

You give your vision as you work now for sail-innovation as sales-manager (http://www.sail-innovation.com/racing-team/), at least I did a complementary chapter.
2 exposed differents points of view are a good way to make people mind.
I believe that TC and WC work deserved that. I hope I did it correctly whith my poor english.

About weight issue (large sails from 140 to 130 kg) I was against, because I think that is not in favour of the majority of people (getting older and fatter like me) and favorised skinny people and some silly diet.

With French team we organise the vote. Every part express themselves. A majority come for this change of the rule. So in the WC I vote for... even if I don't change my mind.
But I respect French members vote when I'm representing them.
It's a running joke with my son (135 kg with his crew on a Tiger and large jib & spi).

On paint, no new rule or rule changing indeed. There is no consensus in TC on this point, for WC it was only a clarification of the text beyond many. And this clarification is interpreted now by ISAF.

Again the story is not finished there is a rule changing process, go for it !

I agree, especially with the durability aspects.

This conflict make me wonder if the big-manufactureres are scared of better looking painted boats with fancy graphics. Just look at the Nacra 17 with all the fancy painted stripes on it. Everyone thinks it looks great.

I'm just a small-time club sailor of no consequence (other than my dollar vote) wanting to sail cats again and buy me a new boat. I used to sail a H16 (I do not like the gel-coat finish). I would rather have a painted boat. I also think two-cloth main sails sound better too. But whatever.

I just hope all this confusion get straighten out soon.

Here you can have a good view upon TC work:

http://tinyurl.com/7u5gmhy

I don't understand why the class association doesn't allow boat owners make decisions about the trade offs between quality/performance and cost. Boat owners already have the choice of how often they buy new boats, new sails, have the boat polished, or receive coaching. I think owners should be able to decide between gelcoat and paint, single material sail and two material sail, or long daggerboards and short daggerboards. Its not like these decisions about materials double the cost of the boat or make a boat unbeatable. From my perspective, its more about perceived performance than actual performance.

I agree: F18 owners/members have to make decisions.

Don Findlay write:"Many of the requests for change have come from commercial interests and not from National Class Associations".

Limitation of daggerboard length is a new limiting rule for controling the cost (long daggerboards are very expensive).

Paint and single material main sail are only clarification made by the WC on previously existing rule.

Rules can change with a one year delay notice in order to have F18 builders/sailmakers playing with the same rules.

What were the F18s that were made in Holland of plywood, yellow hulls and clear sails I remember?

Just to be clear, I was thinking let the owners decide what boat they want to buy instead of having the class decide what they can buy. So, I think the class is being too restrictive.

I think what we're seeing is the manufacturers becoming more involved in the internal machinations of the F18 association. Consequently there appears to be some manipulation of class rules for commercial protection.

By all means, let them be involved in the TC's but the final decision HAS to be made by the executive that MUST be acting in the best interests of it's members. What we're seeing at the moment is detrimental to the best interests of the members and unfortunately the class as a whole.

Paint vs Gelcoat isn't that big a deal performance wise however it is a very big deal manufacturing wise. (remember - total surface area of cats hulls is stuff all compared to a 100 foot maxi so spending big on a supposedly "faster" paint isn't going to provide a substantial benefit.)

Single cloth vs multi cloth sails - so long as the material being used is listed on the approved materials register then sail makers can make a cheaper sail with higher durability.

Why is it that the F18 association is only finding fault with Sail Innovation sails when all others are also technically illegal?

Why is it that the F18 association is only finding fault with Phantom hulls when many other hulls are also painted and have been for a long time??

Gav,

There is no "internal machinations of the F18 association".
Most of the WC members are F18 sailors elected by F18 sailors.
In November, 10 nations expressed themselves representing 74% of the worlwide members.

On the other hand Don Findlay (TC Chairman) write to open the last TC report (http://tinyurl.com/7u5gmhy):

"Many of the requests for change have come from commercial interests and not from National Class Associations".


At least for paint performance there is a doubt, marketing double speech does not help. We should believe marketing speech to WC or marketing speech to customers ?

TC people did not find consensus. Despite the fact that (from last TC report):
"Very strong commercial lobbying has been received by those seeking to be allowed to use paints in hull manufacture"

Here I do admit in the doubt the World Council choose a conservative way for the clarification (no extra rules indeed).
Way which is just confirmed by ISAF: paint is not allowed on new boat (you can use paint for "routine maintenance" only).

In a few word one hand requests for change come from commercial, on the other hand WC is conservative and now confirmed by ISAF.

Here, again :), the key point is the fair competition between boat builders.
That's why rules can change with one year delay notice.

Could you indicate why "all others are also technically illegal?" ?
If this is concerning luff and leech line, TC report answer to you:
"RuleG.4.2 (e) states” leech line with cleat” and G.5.2 (d) states leech lines”. Facts found relating to rule.
Error in writing. Both G.4.2 and G.5.2 should read “leech and luff lines” TC decision. Agreed unanimously."

As you see there is many point on the TC table.

"Here, again :), the key point is the fair competition between boat builders."

But it's not fair competition if the larger boat builders are using cheap asian labour to gelcoat their boats while builders in Europe and Australia have to pay much higher rates in labour for the same process. This is why Windrush, Phantom etc should be allowed to paint - the purpose is not to put a "faster" finish on the boat, merely finish it another way.

I'll ask again - why can't the WC simply stipulate which paints are allowed to be used on F18's? The same way as you have a list of approved sail cloths.

There are many rope manufacturers marketing their ropes are stronger, lighter, more durable than others - does the WC ban these ropes as well???

Where does it end?

To make sense, the complete paragraph is :

Here, again :), the key point is the fair competition between boat builders.
That's why rules can change with one year delay notice.

The second part is the most important for who want to be in positive action.

I point out that process to change rule can (should) start in National Class Associations.
Should start for me, because I do think that the guy who paid should make the rules.

The WC decision upon paint was only a clarification (no new rule indeed).

ISAF just confirmed that clarification: paint is not allowed on new boat (you can use paint for "routine maintenance" only).

If painted finish is allowed, with or without a paint list (after vote process, not only lobbying), all the builders should have time to organise their product.
Shouldn't they ?
It's like racing before the start you cannot cross the line...

You notice that no rule exist for rope, as before no rule exist for limiting daggerboard length.

Harken make lighter and stronger blocks than ronstan, so I propose that we ban all harken fittings

Gav is right. The rules are a mess and they are trying to control things that have no impact on performance.

No mess there: clarification of rule, and this particular one is confirmed by ISAF.
By the way, that is one item beyond many.

Check there that the rules is regularly in evolution: http://www.sailing.org/2129.php

Some years ago the textile trapeze were not allowed. Now they are. The rule change, with one year delay notice. Performance impact ? I don't think so, except when the line broke ;-).

As sales manager of a F18 brand you can ask to be part of the TC. You can see on last TC report (http://tinyurl.com/7u5gmhy) that all pro are not sharing your point of view.

More important for me is that F18 members should control the rules. This thread is an illustration for Don Findlay words:

"Many of the requests for change have come from commercial interests and not from National Class Associations".

Are painted graphics allowed?

You can paint your F18, it is just not allowed for your builder to paint it when the boat is being built.

So, you can ask them to paint it the week after it has been built.....

Or you can take to it yourself, or have your local repair guy/paintshop do it too.

franck,

You really cannot hide this as anything other than a witch hunt. Many boats have been and are painted. Mattia and Windrush have had painted boats in the class for years with no issue. Now all of the sudden this issue of paint is being raised to exclude boats from the class. According to the version of the rules I printed, gel coat is not specifically listed and hence is not legal as a surfacing material, either. This would apply also to vinyl stick on graphics too, so every boat with graphics should be banned as well. Pretty ridiculous – no, but this is what often happens when “universal” rules tried to get written. At the very least if someone feels there has to be a rules clarification, it needs to state paint be allowed from a precedence standpoint alone. Retroactively excluding boats that have been accepted for years reeks of poor sportsmanship.

How does the class make these decisions? There are a couple of primary builders, who I am sure want no part in changing their processes. I have never heard any complaints from a member or in any forum about paint, but now it has become a public mess. This at least makes me question the process here.

Hi Mini,

No witch, no hunt ;-) You're right, nothing to do except explain how it works (I'm very sorry if I repeat myself).

Here the key point is the fair competition between boat builders (that may explain that nobody complain on forum before)
That's why F18 rules can change, but with one year delay notice.

I point out that process to change rule can (should) start in National Class Associations.
Should start for me, because I do think that the guy who paid F18 should make the F18 rules, not the builders.
You may consider I'm wrong.

For the builders there is no consensus on this issue (not only a couple of primary builder indeed).
The builders/sail makers composed the technical comittee (TC), they take no effective decision.
Here the last report of the TC: http://tinyurl.com/7u5gmhy.

The world council (WC) is mostly composed by F18 owners elected by F18 members/owners.
The WC make decisions, the vote right are weighted on members: the more members there is in a country, the more vote it gets.
You may think, 10 nations, representing 74% of the worldwide members, during the last world council have taken a conservative option.
Then you'll be right.

But you have to consider that here the WC decision upon paint was only a clarification: no new rule indeed.
To open the rule, to change rule can (should) start in National Class Associations.
Not because a builder want to change the rule or have is very own intepretation.
May be is right, may be not.

And here we are: this storm in a very little glass of water is because the International Sailing organisation (ISAF) just confirmed last week the WC decision.
ISAF said: paint is not allowed on new boat (you can use paint for "routine maintenance" only).

More than this, you may notice, as far as I know: no F18 are banned... very little witch, very soft hunt.
For gel coat, no doubt, please consider the last files: http://www.sailing.org/2129.php

If painted finish is allowed, with or without a paint list (after vote process, not only commercial lobbying), all the builders should have time to organise their product.

Shouldn't they ?

Everybody can cross the line but not before the start.
The real mess is when everybody start when they want.

As word for the end I consider: the more F18 sailors/owners involved in National Class Associations, the better it would be.
If paint issue make F18 people move in this way that will be great.

Franck,
You just keep on going with this crap don't you!

Painted F18's have existed since day 1 of the class rule. It has always been legal to have a painted F18. This is not debatable, it is fact.

ISAF actually confirmed that all F18's (except painted ones) were not legal in their latest interpretation. So the class made an emergency change to try and fix the mess it created by itself.

Every time someone call you out on your biased actions you try to fall back on this fair for everyone crap, but in reality it is a witch hunt and you are at the very center of it.

Here is a good question for you:- The recent emergency rule change was made without the votes of members of the WC, so how is it considered to be a valid decision within the bounds of the constitution?

Andrew I'm so sorry that you keep making very strange affirmations.
I understand that to be involved in F18 business does not help to have a balanced position.
Let's go to try to make response point by point.

Macca said:
"Painted F18's have existed since day 1 of the class rule"

That is not true just check 2002 F18 rules. And all the first F18 were gel-coated (Alado, Hawk, Mattia etc...)

Macca said:
"ISAF actually confirmed that all F18's (except painted ones) were not legal in their latest interpretation"

Just read ISAF answers (as native english you should undestand difference between n° 1 formulation and n° 2 formulation: gel coat is not the only way to finish in the material list, that is very different to what you want to make believe:

Question 1:
In reference to class rule D.2.3(a) "Routine maintenance such as painting and polishing is permitted without re-measurement and re-certification" - Does this rule allow new boats to be supplied with a painted finish?
Answer 1:
NO.

Question 2:
In reference to class rule D.3.1(a) "The hull shells shall be built from polyester or vinylester resin, glass fibres.... Every material that is not expressly permitted is prohibited." - Does this mean that boats supplied from manufacturers should have a gelcoat finish?
Answer 2:
NO.

Macca said:
"Every time someone call you out on your biased actions you try to fall back on this fair for everyone crap, but in reality it is a witch hunt and you are at the very center of it."

I'm just a little tired to read only one sound. Admit there can be another point of view.

Please, one more time, when you have no more ideas you cannot help yourself to go to personnal attack. F18 deserved better. So sorry but I'm obviously not the center of TC (Chairman Don Findlay), WC (Chairman Olivier Bovyn) and now ISAF (here you're targeting who ?).
And by the way, It's nice to respect 10 nations expression representing 74% of the worldwide member.

Macca said:
"The recent emergency rule change was made without the votes of members of the WC, so how is it considered to be a valid decision within the bounds of the constitution?"

If You remenber well you start yourself a part of the ISAF process. You do not considered taht ISAF can make it's own way. Now you can attack ISAF as well.

Indeed ISAF there adjust the wording in order to suit to spirit of the rules: F18 are with gel coat finish.
Your brand is proposing gel coat finish. Ite missa est.

Franck,

You keep avoiding the questions:- How did the class make a rule change without the proper process as set out in the constitution being followed?

The class rule clearly states that all WC NCA's must vote on any rule change, yet in this case I have yet to find any NCA that was aware of the proposed change. So now it appears that there is someone inside the class able to change class rules as they see fit.... regardless if its a good change its unacceptable to have changes made without the proper process.

The rule change was made because ISAF clearly ruled that all gelcoat F18's were illegal. Yet you still believe in the "spirit of the rule" which as ISAF will tell you is not a concern when it comes to the rules and interpretation of them.

Painted hulls have been present in the class since it's inception and I have sailed painted F18's since 2005. Those boats have sailed at Worlds and are still sailing today. Paint is allowed in the class rules and that as I have told you before is not up for discussion. Its an accepted FACT and is confirmed by ISAF.

If you don't believe me I suggest you put your money where your big mouth is and protest me or any of the painted boats at the next regatta, how about Eurocat? Shall we agree to meet in the protest room there? I can assure you you will be disappointed with the outcome.

Andrew, as old man I can say that 2005 is not F18 day one... I notice you have changed your version in your different posts...

Existing painted boat, are not a clue. Are they refurb or not, because refurbish are allowed for maintenance routine...that doesn't mean it was allowed to build paint boat.

Indeed it is a very strange idea you're defending.
You can drive with speed over the limit, it doesn't mean it is allowed to do so.

For the process, just read november 2011 World Council minutes. Clarification of the rules on this very particular point has been voted: " The hull shells shall have an external gelcoat finish. "

You contest (loudly) the vote of the WC of november (by the way 10 nations and 74% of worldwide F18 members)
and appeal to ISAF to interpretation.

Last week, ISAF confirmed in 3 different documents (http://www.sailing.org/2129.php) what the WC voted and make a wording in accordance whith ISAF rules. Indeed that is not big deal.

ISAF never ruled that all gelcoat F18 were illegal... just read the interpretations (in my previous post) and make difference between wording of the 2 questions.

All of that is ok with our constitution (A.7), as I mentionned it's a team work.
I understand the result is upseting you.

Now you challenged me with a protest in next Eurocat.

First, you just forget that I'm not the MNA's measurer of this regatta.
I'm so sorry but, may be you will waste your time in protest-room, but it will be without me.

For me, Eurocat is a full fun regatta, so I prefer beer after racing on the water.
You're not class legal, that's your problem there. May be you should understand that I don't care.
I'll read on the official panel the results of all protest and kidding my poor friends OCS or BFD (or they will laugh upon me, it depends).

I'm not jury, just explaining here what is the decision process, because:
-it has to be explained, I agree it's not easy at the first time
-only one sound is not enough to have his own opinion (which I do respect whatever it is),
-your speech is very negative for F18 and by the way for your own business and market.

You want to challenge the rule, go for it !
For me it would be smarter to understand that you can change it, if a majority of F18 members, agree of course.
F18 rules are ours !

In the same time, Eurocat, is very important for commercial interest.
So, may be, your challenge will make sense for others brand representative, just read F18 Technical Comittee report to see that there is no consensus: http://tinyurl.com/7u5gmhy

Obviously you're present affirmation/challenge sounds in contradiction with the web site of your brand which is offering choice between paint or gel coat finish...
As a F18 customer I think it's pretty interesting
I'm ready to pay a little more to eliminated a potential protest in a very high sport event.

So I have a more interesting challenge to put my money: the price of any gel-coated F18 will be similar, as they are on the market.
Thanks to "FORMULA 18 CLASS RULES GUIDING PRINCIPLES:"

Being open to any manufacturer allows many builders and sail makers to compete and so keep costs to a minimum.
The Class remains aware to keeping development under control, maintaining a good balance between cost and performance."

Franck,

As I said, I am confident that painted boats are within the rules, they always have been and ISAF agree. And unless you would like to protest painted boats I suggest you shut the hell up about it. You do have a history of trying to ban boats... remember you lobbied hard to get all shockwaves banned from the class (after you sold your own shockwave first... nice guy.)

You have already been banned from Martin's site for your repeated twisting of facts and agenda, so perhaps you are not long for this site either...

See you in Carnac.

The cost for gelcoated boats are similar because they are all built using cheap asian labour - different brands are even manufactured in the same factory.

How is that a good thing for F18 development?? What I do know is that in your perfectly gelcoated world a European or Australian manufacturer who wants to actually BUILD the boat themselves can no longer provide a boat at a similar price because the labour costs involved in gelcoating in those countries makes it unviable.

You say banning paint is a good thing for the class because some marketing material says it makes the boat go faster. Yet you are now eliminating manufacturers from entering the class unless they send their boats to the same factories in Thailand that the major builders use.

That's crazy talk.

Gelcoated vs painted boats - Please prove to me there's a performance advantage.

Otherwise it looks very much like a cynical attempt to force out one particular manufacturer to the detriment of others.

Well most of the high end paint coatings you are talking about are polyester based resins anyway... From the AwlGrip website: "Type: Two Component Linear Aliphatic Polyester Polyurethane"

So, AwlGrip if used can be considered a "polyester resin" and therefore is allowed by rules.

This is a ridiculous argument, get over it. Paint can and should be allowed, even for new builds.

Andrew, personnal attack show that you cannot accept another point of wiew.

In the same move you just point out that you've got a poor argumentation.
You do not have argumentation against what I wrote ( previous posts without any answer, I'm disapointed ;-) so you try to attack me.
It's a typical way to admit that you are wrong...

It's not because I don't want to waste my time on a regatta that I will stop to present arguments.
The risk for protest is for you there. Anybody can do the protest. it is your case.
And if nobody protest, it's not so important.

You want to challenge the rule and made perturbation in a regatta, it's your choice.
You're confident in Eurocat jury as you were for ISAF decision. Keep going this way.

Plus you're tryin to intimidate me. It's not very serious and I believe F18 deserved better.
I'll be in Carnac with no particular emotion except sailing F18 with my kids and get money for the french association (you can give some ;-).

ShockWave are not banned, if you don't understand general meeting action I just don't care.
It's like ISAF attitude for the paint. You're wrong again.

For what you said about my own Shockwave it's so poor and ridiculous.
I sold my Shockwave in january 2010, the corecell issue was in july 2010 (I do see in the future ;-) and the WC you speak about (but you weren't there) in december 2010.

You can have good informations from Eric Proust the reseller and Guillaume Hemery the today owner of the boat and you will understand that you're embarrassing yourself.

Andrew, here you make me laugh. Happily I've sold no paint boat during the last 10 years. All you affirm is becoming grotesque.
Anyway, I will accept apologise.

Until there is no characterized cheating, grandfathering and derogation (RSS87) is the way used by F18 class to respect F18 members/owners money. You do not noticed that ?

The builders which do not break the rules do not like this balance.
To improve this I proposed a builder compliance certificat in order to increase customer trust in builders product and prevent such case.
Asking TC or WC to an interpretation of the rule if you want to do something is a smarter way.
Not only respect to F18 class and its community indeed.

Information is the key, but wrong information or only one sound isn't good.
Debating is not easy, we've to stay in idea field and respect people in front of us.
I try to do so with no particular expecting and some prefer to have only their own sound. I do not blame them.

I'm free, my business is not F18, it is just a passion, may be that's why I'm disturbing you.

Hi Gav,

Painting and one factory in a low cost country are not the same issue.
The same factory is the provider of several F18 brand, for the hull, that is an industrial common case.
Builders make choice, for the sails how many real factory ? A few indeed.

But as far as I know, I do not see painted F18 with a real price (not list price but the price you're paying) 10 or 20% off a gel coated one.

There is no consensus in the Technical Comittee about painting, I just add that double speech in marketing material did not help. Really faster, or not the painted boat ?

The paint issue is a clarification, not a new rule that's a key point.
Clarification voted by the last november World Council (10 nations representing 74% worldwide members).
ISAF confirmed that clarification and improve the wording last week (3 documents, not one).

And the rule can change. If you're involved in your National F18 Assocation, you can act for it !
F18 rules are ours, they are not belonging to anyone else that the F18 customers.

As a pro, you can share your advice with the technical comittee

I am getting out of International Aerobatic because of very similar performance biased issues. Being new to F18 racing, this does seem to be biased against smaller boat builders. I would interpreter this to read that you can paint a boat as long as it is a polyester, vinylester, or epoxy based paint. The pigment wouldn't matter just as you can have gelcoat with different pigments.

Just as the gelcoat is used as a finish , so can any of the other approved materials. A stricter interpretation would say that you could build the hull shell from polyester gelcoat, but I am thinking that gelcoat alone wouldn't be very durable since you couldn't mix in any glass fibers.



D.3.1(a) The hull shells shall be built from polyester or vinylester resin, glass fibres, polyester gelcoat, a core of PVC, balsa or felt, the combination of wood-epoxy, injected plastic, which shall not be altered other than locally for fittings, and passage of equipment and normal reinforcement. Epoxy glue is permitted for joining components. Every material that is not expressly permitted is prohibited.

Well if I had enough time to type out these stupid arguments like you do I might do that! Unfortunately I don't, and don't care enough to try to make the time, so I'm stuck skimming through the crap you write, with only enough time to make quick responses (that are based in REALITY).

Please Franc, GO AWAY, or discuss this topic on a French catamaran sailing website that we don't frequent.

Franck, you must be getting the feeling that you are the only one that wants to ban paint...

With so many logical arguments against your position you are beginning to be less and less relevant whilst you persist with your position.

Andrew, I want to ban nothing. You're involved in F18 business and here defending your money interest, which is respectable.

But your "logical" arguments, make me wondering if you're serious:
-paint is faster but it is not,
-F18 painted exist before (since day one and after 2005) so they are class legal, even if they were not, as you said they are , they surely are
-paint issue is in order to ban little builder, so you propose now gel-coat finish
-F18 painted are cheaper than gel coated ones, but indeed they are not

Just remind you fact that you cannot now ignore no more longer on this issue:

There is no consensus in the Technical Comittee.
World Council did vote a clarification (10 nations representing 74% of worldwide members).
ISAF confirmed this clarification and improved the wording last week.
And the rule can be changed with a vote process and one year delay notice.

After saying that you're right, nothing more to add.

****. The members of this forum are sick of your rants and you are cordially requested to go away.

It has been made clear to you from numerous independent sources that there is support for painted finishes and 2 cloth mainsails. Yet you continue to bang on about the class rules and procedure. And the rest of your posts are bordering on the unintelligible ramblings of a crazy man.

See you in Carnac, where I again offer you the chance to protest any of the painted F18's present.

You haven't answered the question Franck.

- Please prove to me there is a performance advantage in painted vs gelcoated hulls.

This thread has been going for a long time now and there is not a single person other than yourself posting in favour of this ban.

Think you might have got it wrong???? Or is it directed solely at banning Phantoms??

Every time I click on this train wreck of a thread I want to light a bag full of kittens on fire.

He won't answer it. He will only assert (yet again) that there is "disagreement" among members of the Technical Committee, in much the same way that people who want everyone to believe that we were created in an instant 6,000 years ago will repeat over and over that there is "disagreement" among scientists over human evolution. It's an age-old trick: if you can't prove you're right, then you just blow a lot of smoke and muddy the waters, in the hopes that people start to have doubts about your opponent.

The other question--an equally important one--that he still refuses to answer is, "Why now?" In other words, we've had painted boats. If not from day 1, then certainly from day 2 or 3 or 4. Certainly more than were ever stuffed with Corecell. So, for the umpteenth time:

If paint is such a problem, then where have you been all these years?

Why the sudden class-threatening crisis? If you cannot answer that, if instead you can only blow more sanctimonious smoke, then the allegations that this is all just an effort to squash Sail Innovation become very believable.

It's as simple as that.

Gav,

You're right that is a key question.
I've already said there is a doubt for the members of the technical comittee and you can consider that F18 World Council (10 nations, representing 74% worldwide members) vote in a conservative way for this clarification (no new rule).

Please do not think I want to be rude if I return the question:
can you prove me there is no performance advantage in painted hull ?
It will be difficult, as to prove you there, there is a performance advantage.

Some pretend to have this performance gain and they step back in another (marketing or true ?) speech.


I'm not postin in favour (or not) of this ban. I post:
-to explain the process of this issue (which is not against one buiders as Macca said Mattia and WindRush are concerned)
-to allow reader to have another sound.

That's why I'm goin on, and I don't care personnal attack or insult (just learnt what "crap" means, that is strong )
An people aggressivness is getting higher when those people argument are poor, that is clear sign to reader who want to make his mind.

More than this, you know as me, than 10 satisfied people make less noise than one unsatisfied one.

This apply on another subject: in forum or blog you find many post and reaction against HC16 for Olympic.
Despite this, each poll on the web, HC16 is the first or the second choice.
The more harder is the attack against this boat, the more significant is the HC16 choice.
Funny isn't it ?

Again, and sorry to repeat, I'm not agains or for painted hull.
It's not a trick. My own opinion here does not matter.
The start of the thread was: "what happen ?" I try to make description.
But it appears that this description was another sound that the most spread one.
I think it's better to have 2 sounds than only one point of view to make your own (and respectable) opinion.
That is no smoke, ray of light may be

Why now ? is a very interesting question. I agree with you they were no painted boat at F18 day one and may be some home-made during 18 years.

-F18 is growing faster worldwide, so the economic interest are getting more important. On one hand (fully respectable) builders interest on the other F18 owner interest.

-You mentionned Corecell issue. You're right that is a key moment of F18 history.
Since then, the trend is when a rule need to be clarified it is done (just have a look on the ant work made by the TC: http://tinyurl.com/7u5gmhy). In Corecell case Loday/White change their process, now Phantom are proposed with gel-coat.
More noise in the second case, but the same principle.

There is no plot or witch hunt:
-Mattia is concerned and Contreas is member of TC.
-Not big builder against small: Manu Boulogne is for gel coated finish.
-And three F18 are concerned, not only one.

You right, WC vote is in conservative way, because more than 95% of the F18 fleet is gelcoat and beause it is in class rules principle: "The Class remains aware to keeping development under control"

But, again, do notice that rules are ours, and they can change.

Franck, You really need to quit the lies.

this quote is from Manu Boulogne who you claim is against paint: "My preference as a builder is to build in gelcoat cause
we master this system. We have also build a boat in paint to do a test in
our opinion not the best solution. But if there are builders who want to
build in paint, should be their choice as long as that builder specifies he
is not using an epoxy paint. "

You can twist it however you like, but the intelligent people see your lies.

And if you want me to stop picking on you you can always call me and ask for mercy, its not going to stop me if you call Alex and beg him to make it stop... You are a bad influence on the F18 class and a primary reason why the class is in the mess it currently finds itself. The fact that you believe you are right when everyone here is telling you that you have it wrong is proof that you are not interested in the class members but only your own agenda.

Andrew, as I'm not in a marketing speech (which you say are not believable) so there is no lie

I write
"-Not big builder against small: Manu Boulogne is for gel coated finish."

Your quote is:
-"My preference as a builder is to build in gelcoat cause
we master this system. We have also build a boat in paint to do a test in our opinion not the best solution"

Of course as a pro, Manu Boulogne is a TC member he cannot vote for the clarification of the rule and decide for the others builders.
That wouldn't be fair. Despite what you pretend, F18 association does not work this way
World council vote this clarification (no new rule), ISAF confirmed this clarification and improve the wording last week.

And everybody can cross check with the last TC report (http://tinyurl.com/7u5gmhy):

"All TC builders who are using gel coat as the exterior finish wish to continue as they think that it is the best way for the Class. It is the most economical method of production, they have invested heavily in quality moulds to produce hulls with fine surfaces"

Andrew, where is the twist ?

For his product Manu Boulogne is against paint, thank you to help me to confirm.
I hope you agree with this wording.
By the way it is terrible for your technical (or marketing speech, I don't know, you make it a bit confused) point of view.
You remember you write:

"Paint is proven to be a quicker method to complete a hull as you can spray all the seams whereas gelcoat takes about 8-10 hours per hull to finish the seams."

Proven is here a very interesting word. It's your fully respectable analysis.
Here Macca "your" truth is not everybody truth. That is now proven, thank you again.

Indeed, I ask Alex Udin to stop all personnal attack (not only for me...).
Because first, that only show that you've got poor arguments.
Most important I think that F18 deserved better than ridiculous personnal attack.
And I always prefer talking to the boss, in this case the boss of the company you work for.

A lot of people read this thread, they have two sounds, not only one, that is my only goal.
For this I 'me evil for you, that is your truth but may be not everybody truth (as for gel-coat).

We can have a beer in Carnac (If you've got time after protest room, that I sincerely do not wish for you )

You should know that 10 satisfied people make less noise than one unsatisfied one.
Everybody understand you're not satisfied.
As old man I can say that being unsatisfied is not good for business.

Please tell me more about my own agenda, trying to be allusive is also a typical sad path.

Just one more thing.

There is a very simple way to prevent your today situation.
If you want to make F18 with a "brand new process" or service.
Just ask if the rules allow that before.
TC can answer, or if there is no consensus, WC can make a clarification.
It works ! And in this kind of move, you show respect to F18 community

Take time to think about that. I hope you'll see it's far more clever attitude.

Franck -

As a non-"pro" I can tell you I have recently purchased my first F18. It is a 2007 Nacra Infusion. I plan on possibly buying another F18 next season. Undecided on the model.

Thanks to you I am actually thinking about not bothering with this class at all.

Perhaps it is no more than a language barrier - but NO ONE here is impressed with your rants. You are, as we say in my language, "digging a hole".

Cheers,
Karl Funk

Franck,

I do not know how the F18 class system is supposed to work, but this current debacle does not show well for the class and your defense of this position is making it worse in my view.
The F18 class has had painted boats for years - this is more than verifiable.

It is not possible that this is now an emergency within the class such that they would need to place a vote. This makes the decision a new rule not just a clarification. Banning something that has been knowingly accepted years after the fact should not be acceptable to any class member, and reeks of poor sportsmanship, conspiracies etc.

Local regulations play a huge part in the processes builders may elect to employ. If someone is already using 1 type of process, they are not going to want to switch to the other. For a performance cat hull there is very little difference in cost between paint or gel, but it cost a lot to switch. As an ex-boat builder I can vouch that any claim this is being done to protect costs is BS. Add to that, the material suppliers are constantly upgrading and revising their product lines. The PVC core and the gel coat used in the F18 today is nowhere near the same as it was 10+ years ago. Restrictions to brands or very specific material types is a bit of a fallacy if your intent is to claim equality. What about all the new carbo blocks and high tech lines? If we want to keep equal and keep cost in line, let’s all go back to hemp rope and metal shiv blocks.

Bringing Manu into this is a bit ridiculous as well. Is not Cirrus the latest in the rush of builders heading to China for the cheap labor and to shed themselves of regulation? To small builder or even 1 offs with no tooling budgets, paint is a very economical, practical solution. To the builder located where spraying styrene is not allowed, paint is the only real cost effective and cosmetically good alternative. For rehabilitating whole hulls paint is by far the better solution to post gel coat application. (If rehab or repair paint is allowed, it is a bit ridiculous to open up rules such that this is acceptable but on new builds it is not – who decides how much is repair? Big big mess coming up)

If you are part of the F18 process, I would suggest some more time trying to get rid of this issue and not continue to try and defend such a poor example of power being abused.

Hi Mini, You don't know how F18 class system is supposed to work.
That's why I try to explain the process (3 steps) for this issue and add some clear informations:

1-There is no consensus in the Technical Comittee ("is giving advices"), just read the last TC report: http://tinyurl.com/7u5gmhy

2-Last november World Council ("is making decisions") did vote a clarification, not a new rule (10 nations representing 74% of worldwide F18 members), see extract of the WC minutes:
" The hull shells shall have an external gelcoat finish. "

3-ISAF ("as decisions controller") product 3 files confirmed this voted clarification and improved the wording last week then published 2012 F18 class rules: http://www.sailing.org/2129.php

And please notice that: the rule can be changed with a vote process and one year delay notice.
Here is the key point to maintain fait competition between builders. They can adapt their process to the new rules.
So the start line is open at the same moment for every builders.

You're right F18 painted boat exists. Some refurbish it's class legal, very few home made one shot and more recently Mattia, Windrush and Phantom.
Now the rule is clarified. So those existing boats can have derogations (as some Shockwave have for corecell).
Then no protest (so sorry Andrew ,)
It is not a deblacle, it is balance between rules clarification/appliance and interest of the F18 owner.

As far as I know, there is no particular rules for rope or block.

F18 rules process and Painting and one factory in a low cost country are not the same issue.
The same factory is the provider of several F18 brand, for the hull, that is an industrial common case.
Builders make choice, for the sails how many real factory ? A few indeed.

Manu Boulogne is well known and his position is a bit different from yours:
"My preference as a builder is to build in gelcoat cause we master this system. We have also build a boat in paint to do a test in our opinion not the best solution"
See extract from the last TC report:
"All TC builders who are using gel coat as the exterior finish wish to continue as they think that it is the best way for the Class. It is the most economical method of production, they have invested heavily in quality moulds to produce hulls with fine surfaces"


Indeed there is a very simple way to prevent this kind of situation.
If a buider want to make F18 with a "brand new process" or service.
The builder/sail maker ask if the rules allow that before.
TC can answer, or if there is no consensus, WC can make a clarification.
It works ! And in this kind of move shows respect to F18 community.

Don't you think so ?

Your hole is getting deeper Franck.... Keep digging and you may find the other side.

You must realise by now that you are the only one in here against painted hulls, there are more and more people joining the conversation against you. When are you going to get it in your head that you are wrong??

Time and again people present clear and logical arguments for paint and you continue to dribble on without acknowledging the facts presented to you.

Do you even know how contradictory your statements are? Or how messed up the latest Tech Com report is? You quoted this: "See extract from the last TC report:
"All TC builders who are using gel coat as the exterior finish wish to continue as they think that it is the best way for the Class. It is the most economical method of production, they have invested heavily in quality moulds to produce hulls with fine surfaces"

Of course they want to continue to use gelcoat!! they have invested in that method!! It is suitable for large production in low labour cost countries! The rest of us don't want to move our production to Asia, we wish to support European manufacturing, and if its more economical for us to use paint then we should be allowed to do so. You have as much knowledge of boatbuilding as my grandmother and she would never dream of telling me the most suitable way to build a boat and neither should you.

This is actually the most touching post, I'v been reading there.
If you do so, for you, I'm sad.

I take this long time to explain a complicate process, in a long term trend.
The only goal is to have a more fun and stronger F18 class.

As this decision is upsetting some builders this thread became far too serious.
Here please pardon my obstination and my poor english, is to give another sound.

Most of people don't give a penny for this issue. They're right. It's boring, not fun and so on.

But all certified F18 sold can race (now the rule is clarified and the already painted F18 can have derogation). No F18 is banned.

And please notice that: the rule can be changed with a vote process and one year delay notice.
Here is the key point to maintain fait competition between builders. They can adapt their process to the new rules.
So the start line is open at the same moment for every builders.

Indeed there is a very simple way to prevent this kind of situation.
If a buider want to make F18 with a "brand new process" or service.
The builder/sail maker ask if the rules allow that before.
TC can answer, or if there is no consensus, WC can make a clarification.
It works ! And in this kind of move shows respect to F18 community.

That's why I propose a certificate of compliance from builders, given with the bill, before F18 certification that transform a 18 feet cats in Formula 18.

Andrew,
I join you in the dark hole and there is light on the other side
So I keep digging.
Remember, you should know that 10 satisfied people make less noise than one unsatisfied one.

Supporting European manufacturing is marketing speech or your own proven technical advice ?
Can you remind me where your F18 sails are product ?
It isn't a shame do not worry.

In European manufacturing when you are not wise enough to ask regulation before launching your production, you're dead.
Ask your grandmother, there is no reason to believe me.

Thank you very much for saying: "if its more economical for us to use paint then we should be allowed to do so"
I pay you the beer in Carnac.

Andrew, that is pure wishfull thinking and a key point: builders money interest do not rule F18, for the moment.
F18 rule process involved TC (builders giving advices), WC (mostly F18 sailors elected by F18 sailors: making decisions) and ISAF (controling).

And, as a F18 customer, I notice your (excellent) boat with plain finish (18.650 euro ex tax) is more expensive than some gel-coated one (17.290 euro ex tax) http://tinyurl.com/7v3wxst. Those figure are only price list.
But where is the customer interest in this saving of money, you claim ?

I answer all your questions, why you do not give me your opinion on this following proposition:

There is a very simple way to prevent your today situation.
If you want to make F18 with a "brand new process" or service.
Just ask if the rules allow that before.
TC can answer, or if there is no consensus, WC can make a clarification.
It works ! And in this kind of move, you show respect to F18 community (builders and customers).

Franck,

Painted f18's have been allowed in the class for years, we all know it and you keep denying it.

If you want to compare prices I suggest you compare the same spec boats. We offer our boats with full Autoclaved foils that are stiffer and unbreakable (unlike some..) and we also offer our boats with complete tapered sheets and very high quality ropes made to our very high specifications. We also supply our boats with marstrom style adjustable trapeze systems as standard and our boats come with all foil covers and rear hull stands. Our boats are delivered with exactly the same setup as Olivier used to win the European championships so they are totally race ready.

I suggest you go and price any other boat to that specification and then come back here and tell me what is more expensive. FYI the "race pack" on a Nacra adds 1000 Euro and that doesn't include covers for foils or rear hull stands.

Our boats are excellent value for money and you can hardly call them expensive compared with other products on the market. If we had to build in gelcoat then they would be more expensive because of the labour cost increase. So, what is good for the class??? good value painted boats or more expensive gelcoat ones?

Andrew,

You're right F18 painted boat exists for year but that doesn't mean they were all allowed. Just refer to the 2002 class rules.
Some refurbish it's been always class legal, very few home made one shot and more recently Mattia, Windrush and Phantom.
Now the rule is clarified and confirmed by ISAF.

Thanks to that clarification existing and already certified boats can have now derogations (as some Shockwave have for corecell).
Then no protest song in Carnac, but fight on the water that is more interesting.

For info in the swiss link (http://tinyurl.com/7v3wxst) the race pack is included.
Your boat (as any F18) are excellent value for money. No doubt Andrew.

When you're buying a F18 18.600 euros ex tax, it's ok to have 1 or 2 Keuros for gel-coat peace.
Less beer, better health, thank you the F18 class.

More seriously I do agree with Alex Udin when he writes : "You can buy a Hobie Tiger for 3000 Euros these days and it still be very competitive with some recent sails. It has never been so cheap to start F18 !! Mischa Heemskerk won the North American national on a old Tiger, 2 or 3 years ago."

That is the true spirit of F18

Err... NO! sorry, but the race pack is shown on the H20 website as a 1000 CHF option. So the total price for a race ready Nacra (no tax) is 18250 and that does not include any covers or rear hull stands.

If you really think that pant was never allowed, then how was a wood epoxy boat meant to be surface coated? It is very clear that you have no idea about how to build a boat, but perhaps you could ask someone with knowledge and get back to us all.

Karl,

Ignore the fight, come sail with us and you will be happy you bought the boat!

-Jeff

I just can't believe the executive of the international F18 association is letting this sort of crap go on. Pretty disappointing really.

Surely Olivier et al could be putting a cap over all this and looking after the sailors. At least communicate the reasoning behind these decisions through a press release on their Facebook page and website.

For the race pack you're right it is not included.
So gel coated Nacra MK2 + race pack retailer pricelist = 17.290 euros + 1000 CHF (so 830 euros) = 18.020 euros ex tax. Phantom plain finish = 18.650 euros ex tax. Those are price list.

One more time F18 painted boat exists for year but that doesn't mean they were all allowed. Just refer to the 2002 class rules.

Some refurbish it's been always class legal, very few home made one shot and more recently Mattia, Windrush and Phantom.
Now the rule is clarified and confirmed by ISAF.

Thanks to that clarification existing and already certified boats can have now derogations (as some Shockwave have for corecell).

You should consider F18 isn't only a boat builder community.
You write: "if its more economical for us to use paint then we should be allowed to do so"
Is the core of this wrong attitude.

Andrew, that is pure wishfull thinking and a key point: builders money interest do not rule F18, for the moment.
F18 rule process involved TC (builders giving advices), WC (mostly F18 sailors elected by F18 sailors: making decisions) and ISAF (controling).

So if there is a doubt, what do you think of that (have a problem to answer ?):

There is a very simple way to prevent your today situation.
If you want to make F18 with a "brand new process" or service.
Just ask if the rules allow that before.
TC can answer, or if there is no consensus, WC can make a clarification.
It works ! And in this kind of move, you show respect to F18 community (builders and customers).

Hi Gav,

For the reasoning just read the last TC report it is quite clear: http://tinyurl.com/7u5gmhy

Indeed there is a very simple way to prevent this kind of situation.
If a buider want to make F18 with a "brand new process" or service.
The builder/sail maker ask if the rules allow that before.
TC can answer, or if there is no consensus, WC can make a clarification.
It works ! And this kind of move shows respect to F18 community (builders and sailors)

That's why I propose to complete a certificate of compliance from builders, given with the bill, before F18 certification that transform a 18 feet cats in Formula 18.

What do you think of that cap ?

Shut up Franck

I respond all your questions and remark.
That is a forum purpose.

So why you cannot answer ?

Oh ffs - who cares??? What's wrong with allowing prescribed coating methods - gelcoat + 2k, acrylic, whatever specified paint and let the market decide from there?? Just allow what is readily and economically commercially available. Who cares if one is faster than the other - within 3 years the market will even out and that's what all hulls will be coated with (if there is an actual advantage which I suspect would be minimal all round).

Tiger Mike
(now on a c2 - how does one change their name here anyway???)

Franck, as much as we would all like you to shut up... How about you use your big boy words to answer the very simple question that has been asked several times:-

How did the class expect wood-epoxy boats to be surface coated?

(good luck with the answer)

best regards,

Andrew

You probably want to change your Avatar too http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/icons/default/smile.gif
I went from a Tiger to a C2 as well - it's awesome isn't it....

I like Macca's question. I wish someone from high up in the F18 executive could give a reasonable answer. Our mate Franck just keeps copying and pasting. I don't think he's answered a specific question yet.

Karl stop being a drama queen! Go sail your boat!

You should know that 10 satisfied people make less noise than one unsatisfied.

I'm so sorry that you THE expert doesn't understand that the response you're waiting for is in the question you don not want to answer.

There is a very simple way to prevent your today situation.
If you want to make F18 with a "brand new process" or service.
Just ask if the rules allow that before.
TC can answer, or if there is no consensus, WC can make a clarification.
It works ! And in this kind of move, you show respect to F18 community

For buiding wood-epoxy boats, the right way would have been to ask for clarification before.

For a complementary answer I quote one comment from an excellent blog, a guy who ask you to grow up, it's not very smooth but the last phrase is so right

"Max Catsailor said...

So for nearly 20 years every F18 sailor and builder has been wrong!?! Grow up Macca, you sound like a cheap lawyer!

If everybody else got the meaning, but you didn't, then surely the class just asks ISAF to correct an error in the text - no big deal. It all just depends on what was intended when the rules were written. What do the class say that the rules are supposed to mean?

After all, if you listen to every idiot who finds a loop hole then why bother with class rules!"

Gav,
I just make the response to Macca (a post before), simply kidding, the answer was in the question he does not want to answer

Franck, You are Max catsailor from martin's site. You took that ID on after you were banned.

Now, the question asked was simple enough, so you could do us the courtesy of answering it rather than more copy and paste crap.

There is no clarification needed for building boats in wood epoxy, it is clearly allowed in the class rules and has been since the very first edition of the rules. My question to you is this:- how is a wood epoxy boat going to be surface coated if paint is not allowed?

I don't expect you to like the answer, but you could at least give it a shot.

So sorry Im' not Max catsailor, believe it or not I do not care, but I think is a smart guy.

Today's martin post was a very funny moment. He should ban all the guys who vote HC16

More seriously I'm so happy to help you in this very technical issue.

Obviously the clarification to ask was not upon wood epoxy. You're right to point this out.
May be ask your grandmother to be sure, I'm not qualified enough.

For me a serious technician (and respectful for F18 class rules and community) would have ask how to finish wood epoxy boat in order to respect the rule.
That would have been very intelligent and positive.

You see the big picture now ?

We can stop now boring people (most of them do not care), it was very funny, thank you Andrew.

Franck, You just cant bring yourself to answer the question can you?

We know you don't like the answer, but the reality is that it proves my (and everyone else in here's) point about painted hulls and the class rules.

Andrew,

again my response you do not want to see:

For me a serious technician (and respectful for F18 class rules and community) would have ask IF18CA how to finish wood epoxy boat in order to respect the rule.
That would have been very intelligent and positive.

Please find below a perfect summary. The last phrase is another answer.


"Max Catsailor said...

So for nearly 20 years every F18 sailor and builder has been wrong!?! Grow up Macca, you sound like a cheap lawyer!

If everybody else got the meaning, but you didn't, then surely the class just asks ISAF to correct an error in the text - no big deal. It all just depends on what was intended when the rules were written. What do the class say that the rules are supposed to mean?

After all, if you listen to every idiot who finds a loop hole then why bother with class rules!"



Two answers are enough for you to understand ?

Franck,

We understand.. You are unable to answer the question without completely shooting all your arguments in the foot.

The cut and paste routine is getting boring now, so how about you run along somewhere else now.

For the love of God.....how long is this going to go on for?!?!?!

Nearly every hands on beach cat sailor knows that you cannot apply gel-coat over epoxy.... Is that the answer because the grandmother in the West Marine store would be lying to me then.

If that is the case, the recent gel-coat clarification makes the rule contradictory. At least before, they were ambiguous relative to "paint".

As questionable as any advice from staff at West marine is... The grandmother is correct!!

Andrew,

I'm very disapointed that you cannot understand:

1-Builders money interest does not rules F18 communnity. So you do not understand this fact when you write:
"if its more economical for us to use paint then we should be allowed to do so"

2-The paint issue from Technical Comittee (pro wich give advices) no consensus, through World Council (mostly F18 sailors elected by F18 sailors) last november vote for clarification not a new rule, to last week ISAF interpretation and improving wording is now behind us.

3-Thanks to that clarification process already certified painted boats can have derogations (as for Shockwave)

4-Being serious and pro mean here ask F18 community if a new process is class legal. That is clever and simply respectful.

Again a perfect summary ( I admit I do like it ;-) )

"Max Catsailor said...

So for nearly 20 years every F18 sailor and builder has been wrong!?! Grow up Macca, you sound like a cheap lawyer!

If everybody else got the meaning, but you didn't, then surely the class just asks ISAF to correct an error in the text - no big deal. It all just depends on what was intended when the rules were written. What do the class say that the rules are supposed to mean?

After all, if you listen to every idiot who finds a loop hole then why bother with class rules!"

Thank you very much Kris.
Grandmother actually never lie ;-)
You're right obviously they were ambiguous relative to "paint".
So it's easy to understand that clarification was important.
This clarification was confirmed by ISAF.

Existing ambiguous doesn't allow to cross the line.

That's why I do think that a serious technician (and respectful for F18 class rules and community) would have ask how to finish wood epoxy boat in order to respect the rule.
That would have been very intelligent and positive.

Franck, you lost. There is really nothing else to say about it. Anything else you post is just dribble.

Ok gaming zone so dribbling and goal.... the score is 4 for me 0 to U.
Let's review the 4 aces:

1-Builders money interest does not rules F18 communnity. So you do not understand this fact when you write:
"if its more economical for us to use paint then we should be allowed to do so"
In another words the rules won't change only to allow you to make more money

2-The paint issue from Technical Comittee (pro wich give advices) no consensus, through World Council (mostly F18 sailors elected by F18 sailors) last november vote for clarification not a new rule, to last week ISAF interpretation and improving wording is now behind us.
You loose here, because you ask ISAF for interpretation and ISAF confirmed the voted clarification


3-Thanks to that clarification process already certified painted boats can have derogations (as for Shockwave)
No certified F18 ban here, no reason to afraid F18 people

4-A serious technician (and respectful for F18 class rules and community) would have ask IF18CA how to finish wood epoxy boat in order to respect the rule.
That would have been very intelligent and positive.
Existing ambiguous doesn't allow to cross the line without risks

As for the rule you think, you and you only are right to appreciate.

Want to play again ?

Please be serious, if not I used my favourite an perfect summary

Watch this video
http://vimeo.com/17595156
this is what a lot of people see the F18 class as. This is positive. Its stuff like this that brings sailors into the class.

Look at the pages and pages of crap and arguing in this thread..this will help drive people away from the class. Its not healthy or constructive.

There are other options out there. F16 F20C (whatever is picked as the new boat for the Olympics) No one wants to become part of an environment that is a bitter and divided.

now GROW UP AND GO SAILING

You're so right, indeed I was on the water all day long.
And I feel good !

Just came back from the workshop, where cats are build...And you had to name me, for God's sake!

Good to see how everyone arguing with you is just using common sense:
Mini:
"It is not possible that this is now an emergency within the class such that they would need to place a vote. This makes the decision a new rule not just a clarification."

Blog: There is a reason people get banned from forums/discussions, even from 'Sailing "Anarchy"'.
Now the Catsailor community may have a glimpse of why you are the only one banned at CSN.

Regarding the H16,quite funny indeed. I was looking for someone to expose his view in favor of the Hobie 16 and I doubted between David Brooks and you.... NOT

I will leave this thread now so you can continue to amuse the audience.
With that said, please do not name me any further

Best Regards and good winds.
Martin

"Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?"
"Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?"

You say everyone should come to the class with proposals as to what may or may not be included on their boats.

This statement is pure BS.
Paint has been accepted in the class for years. As a new builder, or even an old builder with a new boat, how are we supposed to know what items we should submit for questioning? In the 2010 version of the rules, several items that used to be included in older versions just disappeared. There is no record of a vote or even any discussion, they just went missing. This is not a case where clarification comes into play. How does a new builder know how they should build a boat to meet the rules. Do any owners or builders have to worry that their boats will be the next victim of power abuse when the council decides that they wish to randomly ban something that has been in class already?

Now to make things worse for the class they claim post application for rehab and repair is OK. This is asinine as the door is wide open for debate. Why is OK for a repair when not Ok for a new build. Who decides when a repair was required that needed new paint? This is not defensible

What is even more messed up is that there is a set of minutes (approved) from the 2011 AGM that sets out a whole lot of changes to the rules like limit board length and some other bits and pieces but these changes are not in the recently published rules on ISAF's website. So now what??

If anyone builds a boat with longer than 1400mm below hull boards they are still legal even though there are minutes to the contrary.

This mess just continues on and on...

As always Martin personnal attack is only when you cannot produced any strong arguments.
Thank you to confirm that one more time.

For common sense please consider last world council minutes:
"The hull shells shall have an external gelcoat finish."... "The clarification is passed by majority"

Ooops it seems, the World Council did vote (10 nations representing 74% worldwide F18 members) and this clarification (no new rules) has been confirmed by ISAF and the wording improved (3 files published in less than 24 hours).

Everybody can appreciate the way you report this, breaking the unity of the 2 first texts in order to make believe it wasn't a confirmation of the WC vote.

But few people know how, you do consider F18 members. As you feel superior, you dare write (I put double quote because this phrase stinks some very bad thinking):

"" Quantity is not equal to quality or having a more rightfull opinion than other countries with less members.""

No kidding ?
F18 members from France, Italy, Germany, Holland and so on will appreciate their lack of quality you claimed.

Indeed I do not care that you cannot face my arguments and being afraid by contradiction.

And yes, your today post is funny, may be you should have replace your phrase: "" Quantity... "".
I hope your hat was tasty...

First just take five minutes to read the WC minutes, second if you want to test the limit go for it and as you continue this silly game you win my favorite quotation:

"Max Catsailor said...

So for nearly 20 years every F18 sailor and builder has been wrong!?! Grow up Macca, you sound like a cheap lawyer!

If everybody else got the meaning, but you didn't, then surely the class just asks ISAF to correct an error in the text - no big deal. It all just depends on what was intended when the rules were written. What do the class say that the rules are supposed to mean?

After all, if you listen to every idiot who finds a loop hole then why bother with class rules!"

The extract from the WC minutes:

The WC received the report from the Dagger Board Working Party, Chaired by Greg Goodall. The President thanked them for their detailed work.
Proposal :
To update class rules by adding :
“ The maximum length of a dagger board protruding from the bottom of the hull shall be 1400mm.” The WC agreed unanimously with their recommendation for application 31.12.2011.

"with their recommendation: 3 words you do not read.
Trying again to attack F18 community work is becoming grotesque.

Franck, read the 2012 class rules as published on the ISAF website. They are dated 21.2.2012 So any changes made prior to that date should be included in this version of the rules. But all changes noted in the minutes from the 2011 AGM are absent from the 2012 rules.

How the hell are members supposed to know what is going on with the class rules if the ISAF published version (the only true record) are in contradiction to the AGM minutes?

And please stop the copy and past crap, we are all sick of it, you bring nothing new to the conversation.

So how I am supposed to read this? The WC discussed and agreed it was a good idea to put a maximum on dagger board length? That's it? Just some discussion and some nodding - but nothing more? No actual decision to change the class rules?

I have often struggled to understand the minutes of the WC meetings. But on this one it strikes me as particularly odd if I am supposed to believe that the WC did not actually decide to change the rule as per 31/12/2011.

It seems time is overdue for investing some money in the F18 class infrastructure.

Ad
NED15

You opened Pandora's Box again. This is Wikileaks copy-paste third party mails F18 WC?

I stand 100% on that statement taken from and official third party (mine) quote of my mail to the IF18CA World Council you have just published.

The quality is referred to the actual WC members and the voting system dominated by only 4 countries, members of the WC holding an unbalanced and uniformed biased power, this being YOU specifically, not the sailors you represent so well banning the boats they buy!

But I'm glad you are here arguing the actual sailors, as the can have a glance of what is discussing with you at the WC.

You challenged me once to publish info on the blog and I did it wide openly for the first time in 4 years.
And I take full responsability of what I did.

But I have never ever published actual WC third party text as you have just did.
Already wrote to the IF18CA mangement, you are copied of course.

Just say whatever you want but please do not copy-paste third party WC mails (not belonging to you) any further, I don´t want to enter this thread again and start doing the same quoting you.

Best regards.
--------------
"Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?"
"Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?"

Mr Vanzulli,

During the 4 past month you spit on F18 community work at least once a week.

The way you treat F18 community work on your blog is not acceptable.
Publishing one ISAF text and forgetting the other which is complementary is a poor tricky way to mis-informed people.

But nobody complaign, not a word. Is it really so important ?

You're writing a kind of phrase my father heard many times in Buchenwald said by his guards.

"" Quantity is not equal to quality or having a more rightfull opinion than other countries with less members.""

Mr Vanzulli please insult no more french, dutch, italian or german F18 sailors.
One of this sailors, human being by the way, is the equal of one of the rest of the world. Not more and not less.

You should apologize, instead of that you dare write "I take full responsibility."
In France with this kind of phrase your responsibility make you possibly go to jail.

And now you're complaining, poor little bird, because I spread your stinking thinking.
You're embarrassing yourself one more time.

More than this you threaten me and/or (?) the association and in the same time you want to give moral lesson.
Are you kidding ?

"Cause I have plenty of material for sailors to be aware off"…"Just let me know so I decide how to proceed."
You try to blackmail the association. It's miserable.


Franck Tiffon-Terrade

Just edited above.
Stop Lying Terrade.

"You challenged me once to publish info on the blog and I did it wide openly for the first time in 4 years.
And I take full responsability of what I did.

But I have never ever published actual WC third party text as you have just did."

haha Blackmail... I want an official GO - No GO, to publish your own WC quotes.
Thanks Franck!

--------------
"Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?"
"Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?"

WC minute:
“ The maximum length of a dagger board protruding from the bottom of the hull shall be 1400mm.” The WC agreed unanimously with their recommendation for application 31.12.2011.

Andrew, for you what does mean "with their recommendation" ?

For me it is not mandatory. So no particular surprised that this rule will be apply next.

In the same way as for paint, as a wise builder, you'd better ask before building daggerboard > 1400 mm under the hull.

extract: 13 décembre published on you blog, one beyond many exemple of internal WC debate, so third party:

"After Nov 26 Paris meeting (decisions were known beforehand) some irregular procedures being officially questioned right now by another WC member"


Oooops Mr Vanzulli, did you get any go/nogo to publish that from the WC ?
You just forget to write that you were personnally involved in this debate.

Do you know how to read in English?

"But I have never ever published actual WC third party text as you have just did."

The rest of my posts are all wide Open and published on the blog and even discussed also inside the WC while I was in it.

That means quoted mail text by a third party, a person not being me.
You can´t understand reality and rules, and you want to comprehend this?

All cleared now in my behalf.
See you some day on the water Terrade on an Epoxy-Wood made F18.
Wood made, like the racing shell rowing boats my grandfather built, cool boats.

Best Regards.
--ENDS--


----------------
"Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?"
"Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?"

extract: 13 décembre published on you blog, one beyond many exemple of internal WC debate, so third party:
"After Nov 26 Paris meeting (decisions were known beforehand) some irregular procedures being officially questioned right now by another WC member"

You want to make believe that the debate in the WC does not involved third party.
Are you serious ?
For sure you did not published the text, only the spirit of it....

This way you can twist the facts, forgetting to write that you were involved, and forgetting to published the response that exists.

Very fair and honnest indeed.
You revealed yourself there.
So please, no more moral/ethical lesson.

“ The maximum length of a dagger board protruding from the bottom of the hull shall be 1400mm.” The WC agreed unanimously with their recommendation for application 31.12.2011.

For sure I won't put my money in daggerboard longer than this. Even if Class rules aren't updated yet.

Very sorry that very few people always try to attack F18 community work. It's easy and not very positive.

Hi Ad, its very poor to have this level of confusion but it has happened before. Remember the dyneema trapeze lines we all had last season? well everyone went out and made/bought them based on the minutes from the WC meeting, but the rules were not updated to reflect this and as such everyone at the Worlds in Hungary with dyneema trap lines were illegal. If you check the 2012 rules you can see that the dyneema trap lines are now noted as legal. (although the Tech com minutes from Balaton ask that wire be brought back in and dyneema made illegal again!!!)

The rules as published by ISAF are the only thing that matters, so for 2012 you can have long boards, hell they can even be curved boards as long as they are symmetrical in cross section... but lets not go there, it would be like opening a big can of worms

I am sure Franck will copy and paste some more crap here, but he will be wrong.

Here's what I can gather from this thread.

1: It appears the real fight here is from Franck towards Martin.

2: ISAF and some people in France (or somewhere) concerned with F18s made several mistakes, don't know what to do about it, don't want to own up to it and now have a front-man/fall-guy out to sloppily cover it all up.

3: There is some sort of vendetta against Sail Innovation.

I just edited my 'contribution'. It shows (at least to me) that when it comes down to publishing rules or other formal documents, you'd better:
- master the language in which it's written;
- make sure you have them proof read (how about by a lawyer?) before you put them out there.

When the (economic) stakes go up, those who regulate need to step up their game.

Ad

That sounds like a banker talking

Actually, there's a simpler explanation that. Either the ruling body either has limited facility in English or has little experience with rule clarity and standard operational directive/charter management. Furthermore when dust-ups occur, transparency and expeditious declarations from the ruling body do not seem well-managed or clear. My two-cents, based on my observations.

Such situations reflect a breakdown in communication. These situations do become worse if there are suspicions regarding ulterior motives.

http://tinyurl.com/6rc56c6

not a banker talking.. a regulator..a banker wants "free and open markets" so that the "market" can correct itself..and so we have the current financial crisis!

Macca has the inside story.

Are you sure?

http://www.f18-international.org/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=file&id=39:looking-forward&Itemid=50 F18 Int Assoc

Carl, Mamaloe (Ad) was referring to a joke, He understands it and those that know him will also understand it.

Thats the "inside story", But maybe you have the inside story on some wonder paint?

I was also having a joke (after quite a few fine beers)!!!

We are having growing pains. We need to get back to the spirit of the box rule which was to usher in a development class and minimize costs. This necessarily means some give and take, as certain things change performance while contributing greatly to cost. That's understandable.
Boards are a good example. The new boards are somewhere between 2-3X cost of the older boards,as they must be built to extremely high strength tolerances and now can set you back $3000. These boards also provide some improvement in performance.

So, as an example, long as such improvements are possible, it will tend to drive up cost, and can work for, or work against work the box class. Unabated, arms races can, not always, eat into participation, and it should be the responsibility of the ruling body to mitigate certain developments in the interest of broader class development.

Unfortunately, the F18 rules body seems to have a limited abiltiy for composing, and communicating decisive, definitive mandates to the class. This makes everyone suspicious of 'ulterior motives'.

To me, some of this looks more like a lack of English language skills in the rules and outright petty 'gotcha' behavior in an increasingly competitive sailing environment. The rules group, and the class, need to be a bit more articulate and expedient about these changes, even to the point of dismissing some complaints if it was a cheap shot (paint and gel coat discussions are ridiculous) and keep their eye on what is important about the box rule, which is that development should occur, but not at outrageous cost which will adversely impact participation and competition.

Very well put. If you were to recommend a first couple of steps in that direction, what would you prioritize? This is a question for the whole fleet...

I see a lot of big gaps in the rules. For example, there is no good definition of the "vertical plane" that the rudders and daggerboards are supposed to be in and the hull material rule is missing words to make it grammatically correct.

I'd suggest getting a committee of people with a strong command of the English language to go through the rules and make recommendations about how to make the rules more clear. The committee would then present their suggestions to the CLASS MEMBERS at worlds in Long Beach so that everyone knows what is going on. Then bring changes to the world council for a vote.

There has been lots of English-speaking, boat-owning and boat-building wrangling over the vertical plane wording. Nobody's ever come up with a better phrasing than we have. Take a whack at it?

Without requiring the hulls to be symmetrical about a plane, there is no way to define the hull's vertical plane. Also, is someone tried to turn the rudders, they would no longer be in the plane. To begin, some definitions:

A. The rudder plane is the rudder's plane of symmetry.

B. The rudder plane at rest is the rudder plane when the rudder is angled so that the rudder plane is parallel with the boat's longitudinal axis (an ERS defined term).

C. The daggerboard plane is the daggerboard's plane of symmetry.

D. The daggerboard plane at rest is the daggerboard plane when the daggerboard is angled so that the rudder plane is parallel with the boat's longitudinal axis.

I would write the rule with a combination of these three rules:

1. The rudder plane at rest and the daggerboard plane at rest shall be parallel to the boat's longitudinal and vertical axes.

2. The rudder plane at rest and the daggerboard plane at rest for the daggerboard and rudder on the same side shall be in the same plane.

3. The head of the daggerboard when fully retracted and the tip of the daggerboard when fully extended shall not protrude beyond the beam restriction.

I would also add a few more rules:

4. No part of a daggerboard or rudder may lie more than 20 mm from its plane of symmetry.

5. Each rudder or daggerboard may only rotate around one axis. That axis shall be parallel to its plane of symmetry.

Rule 1 is easy to enforce. But, it would outlaw the Infusion. Rule 2 would allow daggerboard to be canted at any angle as long as the rudders were canted the same amount. Rule 3 should probably be in any combination of rules. Because I think boat tech is cool, I wouldn't mind having only rule 3 in place.

The current rule for reference:

The board cases, the daggerboards and the rudders shall be positioned in the centre plane of the hulls, and the under water parts of the boards and of the rudders shall be symmetrical.

Rule 5: what about rudder rake adjustments? Is that a second axis?

Guys, you are working on the old rules. That wording has already changed. I was on that WP and I challenged trying to find wholes in any way I could, including curved, canted, and else with cads ,examples etc.

Andrew G along Greg were the native english spoken on that group.

The only wording they wanted to add was limiting lenght to 140cm. Just check last minutes , I think the new wording is there. Will check and re post.

Published minutes Dec 2011.

Proposal :
To update class rules by adding :
“ The maximum length of a dagger board protruding from the bottom of the hull shall be 1400mm.”
The WC agreed unanimously with their recommendation for application 31.12.2011.
• Daggerboard and hull geometry discussion:
The WC received the report from the Daggerboard geometry Working Party, Chaired by Andrew Gallagher. The President thanked them for their detailed work.
The WP concluded that the rules as they currently exist prohibit curved and canted boards. However, to avoid confusion a clarification can be added, with a manufacturing tolerance:
E.3.3(x) Curved daggerboards are not allowed. A manufacturing tolerance of 10mm of curvature over the total length of the board is allowed.
Agreed unanimously
The WP reported that many elements of the ERS do not suit multihulls. The boat centreplane of a multihull is not defined. The WP suggested a clarification defining this as:
D.6.x The boat centreplane is the vertical longitudinal plane of the boat which passes through the centre point of the front and rear beams.
D.6.x The assembled hulls and beams must be symmetric about the boat centreplane.
D.2.x The hull centerplane means a longitudinal plane of symmetry of a hull.

Maybe it could to say one axis while racing and allow an axis to kick up the rudders?

How is that rule going to work without requiring the hulls to be symmetrical? The Infusion, for example, doesn't have symmetrical hulls.

Already checked, I even contacted Pete Melvin and Fischer for their feedback.
Missed to paste this:


The WP indicated that the rules already refer to the hull centreplane, which indirectly requires the hull to be symmetric. The WP was not aware of any F18 designs with assymetric hulls. For clarity of the rules and definitions it was proposed to add:
D.2.x Only the parts of the hull under the waterline must be symmetric.
Agreed unanimously
This allowed a clear definition of the hull centreplane, allowing a new rule governing the restriction of inward-canting hulls, and thus boards:
X.x.x Hulls and their appendages may be canted outwards at the keel. Canting the hulls and their appendages inwards at the keel is prohibited, except where this is caused by curvature in the front beam as per rule D.4.2.
The maximum boat beam shall be 2.60 m with hull appendages in completely down position.

You might want to check an actual boat. If you put Infusion hulls on backwards they cant inward instead of outward. I wouldn't call that symmetrical. I think the boat uses four hull molds too.

I would check with ISAF that they think that implicitly referenced rules are enforceable.

I'm fine with making rule say that the hulls shall be symmetrical. But, the rule shouldn't be implied. It should be explicit and clearly articulated. The AC72 rule (written by Pete Melvin) does a good job wording this by defining areas of the hull shells that shall be symmetrical and areas that can be symmetrical.

Rules that are implied or require knowledge of the rule's intentions are bad rules. Good rule clearly define what is and what is not legal. A good rule has well defined terms and must have a way to test if the rule is followed.

A lot of this is made difficult because F18 uses closed class rules instead of open class rules. In a closed class the ERS say, "anything not specifically permitted by the class rules is prohibited." So, the rules have to say "specifically" if symmetric hulls and/or asymmetric hulls are permitted. So, the rules need to be thorough enough to describe everything on the boat. The rules are not at that point.

A few ideas:
1) The forum for communication of rulings and complaints should be more transparent, accessible and obvious. When having an open meeting, post an agenda. Solicit agenda items. Cascade to Fleet reps. Run any open meetings via skype . All international meetings held in English.
2) Any persons ruling to advance an agenda (i.e. conflicts of interest, unethical behavior), will be dealt with harshly, i.e. loss or suspension of eligibility from the class, and removal from the ruling body. Cascade to regatta organizers. Enforce.
3) All complaint proceedings are private matters, until issuance of ruling. In the event that standings are affected by equipment interpretations, unless an example of egregious cheating (i.e. weight, sail plan, obvious box rule transgressions) all equipment complaints on-site should be considered ‘pending equipment appeal to the F18 ruling body’. This will limit on-site rulings to ‘on-the-water’ fouls and basic rules interpretations, rather than arcane equipment, or manufacturing rulings. Also, keeping the complaints private will cool and eliminate unnecessary 'churn' and acrimony. After ruling, cascade complaints and rulings, with simple allowed/disallowed rulings and a simple summary, to all National designees to all international web sites. Let the churn happen thereafter. This will avoid ruling by consensus opinion, which is both slow, and provides unacceptable sanctuary for executive leadership shortfalls.
4) Throw out all trivial equipment grievances immediately. (i.e. a sponsor's paint job, or decal as 'performance enhancing'). Inundating the ruling body with grievances is also not an acceptable means to influence race outcomes. Repeat trivial challenge offenders will be reprimanded by the ruling body, with penalties amounting to event suspension or disqualification, as a disincentive for recidivist ‘challenge’ behaviors.
5) When rules change, provide a context or explanation for the proposed change. A newsletter, or better yet, an appendix, specifying the nature and background of on proposed changes, along with the draft would be sufficient. Use a marked up adobe pdf as the draft document. Cascade to Fleet reps.
6) Rule in clear, concise, unambiguous English, using specific terminology. (The compass discussion was an example of an unintelligible mandate. The ruling body should have just listed devices that were class legal or illegal, or pending review.) If a device, or proposal is new, have the device owner or manufacturer submit the device manual, or proposed change for a ruling. Sometimes this can be a win-win situation. Make the equipment ruling mandate process decipherable to average sailors. Cascade to Fleet reps.
7) Decisions should be fast, fair unambiguous and final. Avoid ambiguity and jargon. The ruling body shall provide a list of pending actions and specific dates for when specific rulings/ rule challenges will occur. Cascade to Fleet reps.
8) Finally, Cost/performance analysis; The F18 Box rule was/is meant to keep the class inexpensive;
a) if an equipment innovation is cheaper and better, and fosters healthy manufacturing, better competition, faster learning, or is simply practical (speedpucks, certain sail cloths), safer (rudimentary GPS devices, tracking apparatus, etc.) or historical/unavoidable (paint, decals) it’s in. Common sense is better than arcane twisted logic or rationalizations.
b) If equipment very significantly drives up cost over an existing standard , or renders large numbers of boats competitively obsolete, it should be carefully reviewed. With the recent long-board discussion, I believe the main cost flash point for the F18 class was confronted in a generally positive and proactive fashion. However, the communication of the ruling was unnecessarily obtuse and difficult to interpret.
5) Manufacturers should meet annually with the class ruling body to discuss any design specification proposals, or concerns over new designs that may imperil the health of the class. Manufacturers should regard F18 cost containment as the Box Rule ‘high ground’.

Respectfully, Rex Denton

I agree. In fact, any class rule rulings should be posted for everyone to see. I like the spirit. But, I don't know how to enforce it. It would help if I understood how the World Council and Technical Committee is selected. This is probably not a good idea. I haven't heard anyone complain that there are too many grievances to handle and we don't want someone deciding what is trivial and what is not. What we should do is not have rules about trivial stuff.
We should be doing a lot of these things regardless of class rules. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a quarterly class newsletter so that we know what is going on in the class? I think we just need volunteers. I would, but I can't write very well.
I agree. I'm not convinced anyone can make and objective determination what effect a rule will have on the cost to compete in the class. For example, how should initial cost and longevity be weighed? I know that no one has an objective way to say if one boat is faster than another. I'd be happy with rules that are largely what they are today, but with more clarity and specificity.

This is ambiguous. Suggest the following:
The boat centreplane is defined as the vertical longitudinal plane of the boat each individual hull passing through the centre point of attachment to front and rear beams. The daggger boards and rudders will be at 90 degrees to the angle of attachment to the beams, with their major axis parallel, and in line with the centerplane.

That would make the Infusion illegal. The hulls, rudders, and daggerboards are canted outward. Also, better wording would reuse definitions from ISAF's Equipment Rules of Sailing (ERS) because the definitions are well defined through use in many classes.

No. Actually, it was written with the Infusion and Cap in mind...re-read it, and remember that the 'angle of attachment to the beams' is canted 4 degrees on the Infusion. I own one...and, uhhh, had to make a minor repair of sorts that made me very familiar with the design specs...Long story thats all figured out now!

Provide a definition for the "angle of attachment to the beams" because it is not clear to me what that is. Are you suggesting that the attachment (beam landings?) is something separate from the rest of the hull?

Here is the AC72 rule that I like:

F18VB: Actual pictures of the Infusion, cads with angles and else were provided at working party, the AC72 rules was also analyzed.

They said it was going to be all published, but not todate.
I challenged every single option you can imagine, even an hexagonal shaped hull (cross cut) where no center plane could be defined if dagger case used canted joining two angles of the hex.

With the Inf and this came the lengh of the daggers coming outside the width limit on 260cm.
And with the others contribution they reach that wording.
Although I didn´t have the final "cut" on wording as they said it was enough with above.

I think it covers most of your points though.

I agree that the majority of the surface of an Infusion's hull is symmetrical. However, the beam landings are not symmetrical about the same plane. The rules could say that the beam landings don't need to be symmetrical. But, the rules need to define clearly what a beam landing is.

Your hexagon example isn't a problem. The hulls could be cylindrical and they would still have a plane of symmetry. A hexagon has 6planes of symmetry, a cylinder has an infinite number of plane sof symmetry. They key is that the rudders and daggerboards are on one of the planes of symmetry.

Yes , Greg put the cilindrical example too.
But a good Hex shape, was more feasible to be used.

They said that the Infusion hull is "stepped" on the beam attachments and the rest is symmetrical, thus the symmetry below the waterline wording. Although I didn´t want to limit hulls to symmetric shapes only.

The Hex example was to provide a loopwhole for the hull/daggercase vertical plane.(previous wording)

I missed the waterline statement. That is a good start.

But, now we need a definition of the measurement trim for determining the waterline because waterline is a defined term in the ERS. Should the sails be on the boat? If so, where should they be? Should the mast be on the boat? If so, how much rake should it have? Since it flies a hull most of the time, should it be measured in hull flying position?

This needs to be a very exact measurement because the hulls are not very wide or deep. An error of 1 cm could probably allow the foils to be canted 20 degrees. The symmetry rule needs to have tolerances defined.

If a hull is canted, the waterline is not perpendicular to the the hull's plane of symmetry. So, does that mean that the side of the hull that is deeper in the water (inside of an infusion hull) can be symmetrical with part of the hull above the waterline?

Do we really want builders to be able to do whatever they want above the waterline? What if the port and starboard hull shells nearly came together in the middle? I have wanted to do this on my boat to make an aerodynamic fairing for the beams. But, the rules were not clear if this would be allowed. If we allow asymmetry above the waterline, this would clearly be allowed.

I'd also like to point out that this is a fundamental rule change. Boats never used to need to be symmetrical below the waterline. If we want to change the rule, we should do some with a great deal of contemplation or not do it at all.

The "Waterline" was added at the end, no further discussions were made on that, it was just added.

They said no assymetric hull existed todate, so no issue was devised.

Someone from outside the WC/TC recommended to keep the rules (all) simple, and I think it is key, as you close the doors with x wording and a "waterline" opened a new can of worms for ie.

Simple as a concept of course, as the previous daggercase rules was 'simple' or short but not a defining rule with plenty of room to play with, even curved boards were allowed in my view.

Why not state that the beams must be straight and the dagger boards and rudders must run at 90 degrees to the beam??

Then lock in underwater symmetry of the hulls along those reference points.

Without giving it much thought -

"Vertical plane shall be defined as the z axis of the boat parallel to the direction of the mast (insert diagram here)."

Not that hard I would have thought - or am I missing something?

Michael

Beams 90°: That is what I proposed exactly and was used.
The Mast was proposed but as it may vary its angle due to shroud lenght trimming etc, was not used beside it is down at measurement.

It was a good working party.

You are missing that the Infusion (and the Cap, I think) would be non-compliant, as the hulls are canted.

Go back to my original. It works for all the boats, whereas the ERS ISAF description is innappropriate for a catamaran of two individual hulls (that may or may not be canted).

Flashy geometry language could be substituted for the part in question, (i.e. 'daggger boards and rudders will be at 90 degrees to the angle of attachment to the beams') could become ''daggger boards and rudders and the center plane shall be orthogonal (90 degrees) to the beam seating angle of the individual hulls' but my opinion is that simple language has advantages to acceptance and recall of rules, (vs jargon which is sometimes unintelligible).

Oh, and skip water line discussions. While there may be design specifications, actual water lines are unknown until a boat is floating. IMHO a waterline is an arbitrary, and empirical specification, and therefore a non-starter from a rules standpoint.

Could we say the dagger boards and rudders will be Parallel?

Parallel is good. But, in the same plane is more restrictive. Otherwise they could be offset from the "centerline."

+1.

This is the easiest to check. However, needs to enable some tolerance.

who needs a hug now?

Franck, It appears that you can't protest any painted boat in Carnac. The votes are in and Painted surfaces have been approved for all F18's including new builds.

The vote for 2 cloth mainsails was very close but the conservatives from FRA, and ITA had too much weight in the vote numbers and for now it is not possible to have 2 cloth mainsails, But that can be rectified in September at the Worlds meeting

My dear Andrew,

Obviously, one more time, you do not understand how it works. Or you do not have the right facts, anyway just ask before misinformed other sailors ( I recommand to every F18 sailors to ask their national association it is more serious)

Your mind is so confused (wishfull thinking is not enough) and may be you should make difference between two words: a wish and a rule.

Just try to read this:
"A.7.2 Amendments shall be placed on one year's notice unless it is considered essential to act immediately to prohibit or penalize an undesirable feature."

For Carnac, do not be afraid anymore I won't protest (as I write before). No time to waste, I'll be there to enjoy sailing and have some beer time with my friends. May be other factory people will go on your protest challenge, but it is your job your paid for. So sorry if you loose your beer time in protest room

More seriously as I explained here (everybody can read my numerous previous posts), class rules clarification and interpretation were necessary in order to go on derogation and/or grandfathering, or changing the rule.

There are 280 French F18 sailors in 2011, there were only 97 in 2006 when I was elected the first time in the french board association. I wish such a number of F18 sailors in all countries. I they are conservatives or not, really I do not care.

PS: I won't be able to have time to try to explain you again if you answer. That I don't doubt, it is your business, you're paid for, I hope it is a lot in order to accept to embarrassed yourself as on SA, very funny indeed and you were alone there.

I won't answer anymore, because we're now in sailing period and I'm training my club youth team: it is my passion. I'm not paid for that :), as to write (badly) here, so everybody can understand I prefer be on the water..

Yes Franck, you lost your fight.

Paint was always approved for use and now it has been clarified by a vote of all NCA's that they confirm paint for newly built boats.

I know you and your mates are pissed that you lost, but at least you could do it with dignity.

Andrew, as everyone can read in previous post (or SA forum), paint is your personnal and business fight.
Please be more adult and try to forget loose/win and consider F18 rules and its global interest (which is wider than the very respectable interest of the company you're working for).

Olivier Bovyn, F18 world chairman want to go out from a poor looser/winner confrontation you seem to like.
As everyone noticed, TC advices for and against painting, WC last december clarification vote and ISAF interpretation drop paint finishing out two month ago.
That was, one more time, a mandatory path to go further: derogation as for ShockWave, grandfathering or changing the rule. That may arrive now.

This clear position (paint, except for real maintenance, is not F18 class legal) create an opposition.
You may understand that each action spliting the F18 community is against your own F18 business.

So, in order to get a peaceful consensus, as everyone can find on the f18.org Olivier Bovyn asked the national association what they do wish on several items including paint issue including grandfathering/derogation and changing this (now) clear rule.

You claim to have the results of this poll. Great !

Everybody can notice that I point out the rule changing process, month ago.

In the case that you do not forget some details (that I and everybody can doubt), to change the class rules there is , as everyone can check, a clear process.

Please have the dignity to respect it, and by the way respect the F18 community.
Because the rule changing process involved F18 members. In France at least that is our way and we propose in general meeting the change.

So, to go from a wish (Olivier Bovyn words: "do you wish...") to a rule change, you need first a proposal, which have to be voted then by the world council.
Till now, there is no clear and official proposal (you may have any other sensationnal informations to spread ?)

And then may be you should also consider ISAF regulation which do not accept paint/finishing that (pretend to is enough for ISAF, I guess) improve performance.
By the way you're sure that you do not use one of those in your product (just kiddin' ) ?

Then consider F18 class rules (I know it is borrying):
"A.7.2 Amendments shall be placed on one year's notice unless it is considered essential to act immediately to prohibit or penalize an undesirable feature."

So if the proposal (that may not exist for the moment ;-) for class rules amendment is voted (that is never 100% sure ;-) asap in september 2012 next WC meeting, the rules change will be available on year later, very effective in 2014.

Please do remenber here I just try to explain f18 rules and some facts (please pardon my poor globish), that is my only purpose.

And it is not a fight for me. I do no play anything here so I cannot win nor loose anything.

I'm so sorry I can't continue this interesting exchange for the moment: two weeks of sailing will take my time. Not less than 142 F18 sailors in Carnac 10 days before the Eurocat is more important for F18 that some paint on the hull.

Err, didn't you say that you weren't going to reply here anymore??

Anyhow, here are the vote results related to paint:-

Do we wish to change in the future the rules regarding hull exterior finish?
vote result :
YES : 947
NO : 0

If Yes, do we wish to allow “painted hulls” as the external finish?
vote result :
YES : 708
NO : 561

If Yes, do we wish to have a restricted paint list ?
vote result :
YES : 190
NO : 499

What is pretty funny about the above is that despite the NCA's clearly voting that they did not want a restricted paint list, the Class management have taken it upon themselves to compile a list of all paints used by builders so they can formulate an approved paint list!!

What you write deserved some corrections and complementary information, not specially for you but for F18 readers/sailors.

Be happy, we're going in 15 minutes... I understand very well that you prefer have no contradiction.

The result you have, if they're correct, show that you were wrong (on more time) considering WC attitude.

Just respect the rules and the people and you can move with the community.

Now we're waiting for the proposal... may be you'll have it before the WC members.
Showing all this data is very strange and significate there is two kinds of F18 members.

PS: 142 F18 sailors for the Eurocat, one more time it is more important for me that your marketing/technical indeed poor fight, as you see there is consensus to change the rule after it has been clarified. No need to be very clever to get that point.

http://www.yccarnac.com/uploads/htm...cat%202012/R_EUROCAT_INSCRIPTION_INS.HTM

Franck,

Once again, I am seriously struggling to understand what you are on about.

The votes clearly show that the NCA's approve of paint, and that they do not wish to have a restricted paint list.

If you would like to point out any corrections with the voting results I am more than happy for you to do so. But I doubt if you will make any comment on them because you know they are correct. You have received the results just as all NCA's have. So if any members of the class would like to know the results in full they can ask their NCA representative and I am sure they will pass on the info.

....I'm getting a better idea why the rules committee comes out with indecisive rules that read like they were composed by people that don't speak English...

I may be incorrect because of a language gap but it sounds like Franck is saying that the NCA's vote does NOT automatically make paint legal. Further, I intrepret Franck's response is that paint has been deemed illegal and until there is a formal petition/proposal that includes an extended waiting/phase-in time if approved, paint continues to be illegal.


Kris
....considering an F18

Kris - The f18 is a great platform and the class is really doing great things here in the states. Do not let the pissing match between these two tools affect your decision.

I agree. Trying to figure a way to at least visit the F18 Worlds in Cali.

Step 1: Buy my boat (see classifieds)
Step 2: Go!

Kris,

I know of at least one East Coast F18 that is looking for a crew for worlds. He has a 2011 C2. Let me know if you are interested and I can get you in touch.

-Jeff

Kris, as a courtesy should you not find a ride for the event, I would be happy to host you at my home and make sure you're on the VIP spectator boat. My way of building goodwill between the F18 and F16 classes.

Kris

We are in a transition phase, but you need to separate politics and racing in the F18.

The US F18 fleet is doing a great job with a growing fleet, from the south we already have crews attending past NAs. And now expect several more from other countries too, we are building a great continental fleet and LA Worlds will be a milestone event for the class.

As the guys are saying, just get on any F18 and race with us, let the (sometimes) necessary bs to others, the 99% of the F18 sailors just focus on racing and having fun.

On the political bs some of us need to get involved, and when generations change, you have some normal process with occasional fights. Some like me go 'kamikaze' and others work in the background, but all aiming to get more sailors onboard beyond whichever opposite position we may have.

The class is growing fast world wide beyond any paint discussion. So forget about it as a factor for joining.
Get on board, chances are that many F18 sailors will start sailing F16 too in the future due to Olympics?

Cheers,
Martin

Every time you click on this thread, god kills a kitten.

Good. I'm hungry.

Well, you may be right, but sometimes the Gods requires some sacrifices to fulfill our petitions.

Kitten.....the other white meat!

Very generous offers (except for the kitten pate) and thank you all. Hopefully by this time next month, I'll know if my transfer is approved and I'll be able to set my calendar and budget for the rest of the season.

I am very aware of the politics vs the sailing. It happens in all fleets, classes, yatch clubs, and even national and global authorities.

BTW, have to share that my first new modern beach cat was a Nacra F18 (2003).

Very correct Kris, sorry for the language gap. The vote was only a poll: "do we wish... ?", no rule have been changed .

Franck, The class president has asked the NCA's a question and they have responded. The results are clear.

The voting process is more in line with the class constitution than the last World council meeting that had decisions made without many NCA's being offered the chance to vote.

This time all NCA's have been consulted and the results are as I posted.

SHOOOOOOOOTTT MEEEEEEE PLEEEAAAAAAASSEEEEE!

Dead kitten...

Andrew, your presentation of the facts is now correct enough, thanks for the change.

Your commentary about class constitution, is no more than a commentary under your responsability. The facts shows you were wrong about the class, there is no fight except the one you're leading for your business.

And for the moment everyone (may you have it already) is waiting for a proposal which has to be voted and then on year delay notice to be in application.

oooops I've just seen a dead kitten. Stop that please, it's awful

what, you have something against chinese food?

Hi, never too late, Alex U. said that (proving enough ??) recently on a commercial website:


"- And the famous paint...
The gelcoat doesn´t makes the boat stronger, is dead weight, so we decided to use paint and reinforce the laminate schedule giving us a better use of the class rules in the benefit of the final sailor that will receive a more stiffer and stronger boat."

Are you serious? You're going to bring this back up. You're like a zombie out of Return of the Living Dead.....but instead of looking for brains you're looking for sh_t to stir.

I read the interview as well and it was very good. There's many builders in the F18 class and they all, rightfully, need to make a commercial return on their investment into the class.

Alex's comments DO NOT indicate that paint is faster than gelcoat. Merely that it gives them an opportunity to lay up a boat differently to make it faster. And what's wrong with that?? The commercial builders working out of Asia use gelcoat to gain a price advantage. Builders like Alex and Windrush don't have that opportunity so use paint instead.

Everyone's a winner....except in your world. Which is somewhere over near Laser Class land. Get over it and move on.

I just answer your question. You can now understand or prefer not to read. Your choice.

Franck, You are a classic **** stirrer. But you neglect to take note that nobody actually gives a **** about your relentless ranting.

You have an opinion about some rules, and the class has voted on those issues and it was not in line with your opinion.

Now is the time for you to accept that the members have spoken and the rest of us have moved on. You may not agree with it, but you still have to accept the will of the majority.

If you can't deal with that then I suggest you go and play in some other area, perhaps chess or bridge club...

Hi Macca, hope your fine with GC32, see you move outside F18. That's great.
For information during 2011 december world council 74% of people vote for clarification and against paint and your interpretation, then your failed ISAF action which confirmed no paint for F18.
Surprise, the F18 chairman decide then to accept paint.
Not very democratic, but let's go for it.
Obviously there will be a restricted list, that is the vote I did last week in France.
By the way, how we can check the kind of paint, I don't know ?
Next year you can try to sell F18 with foil. That's your work.
May be my team will sail ont it
But I think it is funny to point out contradictions.
Have fun.

PS: I'm not sure that paint (or curved daggerboard) is good for F18, and F18 business.
Will see the figure of 2012 very soon I guess.

Dude, for the last time!!!

There was a vote by the council members specifically on the paint issue and guess what??? they voted very clearly to continue to allow paint. This a fact, its not up for debate, and you can see it in the meeting minutes as well as in the ISAF class rules!! I'm not sure what meetings you were at!

And you will be disappointed to know that there is no paint list as you requested, the council wisely decided against that too. So again you miss out on making another stupid rule for the class.

Oh, and Dont worry, I'm still very much in the F18 class. You can see me sailing next season in my painted Phantom with 1.5mil sails that you and your muppet mates failed to ban last week too.

Seriously, look into chess or some other extreme sport more suited to your particular personality type..

December 2011, I was there, just check the minutes.

I just tell about last december 2012 french poll.

How can you explain, you've got the 2012 december minutes to say there is no paint list ? That is not very regular, isnt it ?

Just kiddin, It's your life and your particular personality type. Hope you'll be performing on the water.

Wait for the 2012 F18 figures to appreciate how many F18 have been bought in the world to appreciate paint effect on the fleet.

I mean the fleet of the ordinary guy who paid their F18.

Enjoy your Christmas.

December 2012 WC meeting (pre minutes) press release

http://www.f18-international.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=186:2012-december-wc-meeting-news&catid=21:f18-international

2012 December WC meeting minutes - final minutes

http://www.f18-international.org/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=file&id=50:2012-december-wc-meeting-minutes&Itemid=50