Oz Vic F16 Challenge

Hi all,

the big event is on at the Sauna Sail, Latrobe Valley Y.C. Hazelwood Pondage near Morwell. Queens Birthday weekend 9-11 June. Thats right it's only 4 weeks away <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />, quick start getting organised, it's always a fun weekend, campfires warm water etc. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />.

Sauna Sail details here http://www.lvyc.org.au/
make sure you enter as whatever class of Cat with Kite as we should get a Cat with Kite fleet again like last year, F16 results will just be taken from amongst eligible boats all under 5m. Prizes for F16 1st. 2nd. 3rd., 1st. Mossie, 1st. Taipan and any other class that lets me know they are coming.

The event is wide open this year with last years winner "Mackatack" unable to attend and "Altered" gone to a new owner. I will hopefully be on a new but untuned Blade <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />. There has been some interest from interstate with Canberra and S.A. F16 intending to come, so it should be big, get the thermals out <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />. Hope to see you there. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

sorry..
too old ..
too fat ...
too slow ....
too far to drive.....
<img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

wOw Gary,

New Blade! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> Have you got it yet, if not when are you expecting it?

Might be untuned at the beginning of the weekend but I bet you'll have her hummin' by the end of the weekend. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Be worth going to Hazelwood just for a sticky at your new boat. Have to see what I can do. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Hi Col,

see thread on First Production F16 In OZ.

No it is not in the water yet but here is hoping, it should certainly be worth a look at <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />.

Only 2 weeks to go. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Is the new boat ready yet?

Hi Nick,

no it is not ready yet, but there is a outside chance it may get there <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />. But I will be sailing regardless thanks to the kind offer from one of Mossie guy's <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />. With spinnaker of course <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />.

Hi all,

just got email from "Altered" new owner, he is intending to come. Along with at least 5 or 6 Mossies and Taipans in equal numbers, things are looking good <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />.

Forecast is looking fine also <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />.

Hi all,

it's been run and won. 8 F16 in all, 4 Cat rigged & 1 Sloop Mosquito, 1 Cat & 1 Sloop Cobra and 1 Sloop Taipan.

1st. Taipan "Tasi Oki" Gordon & Jenny, Placings 1,1,2,2,1.
2nd. Mosquito "Imunity" Gary M, 3,2,3,1,2.
3rd. Mosquito "Karma Cat" Tim S. 2,3,1,DNS,3.
4th. Mosquito Philip W/S "More Splashes" 4,4,5,DNS,4.
5th. Mosquito Bill P "Fat Bommer" 5,7,6,3,6.
6th. Mosquito Gordon H DNS,6,4,DNF,5
7th. Cobra Wesley M "Scream" DNS,5,7,DNF,DNS.
8th. Cobra DNS,DNS,DNS,DNS,DNS.

As allways at the Sauna Sail, winds where testing at times. But thae final race was sailed in up to 20kts. leaving most with smiles. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Most interesting was the F16 placings in the 25 boat mixed fleet of Tornado's, F18's, Taipans and Hobies.
Full Results HERE. www.lvyc.org.au/results/2007/events/saunasail/series.htm

Suffice to say the front F16 often mixed it at the front of the fleet and many times F16's where seen to pass Tornado's and F18's, sometimes more than once in the same leg of the course <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Question I have asked before, and will ask again. Why are the Mosquitoes being considered as F16s when there is a large difference in their VYC handicaps to an actual F16 handicap? 71 to 79.5 is a big difference. I note that in the results above you have adjusted for placings over the line and that the Taipan didn't win every race. But your description of the wind conditions probably explains this. However, we aren't really comparing too like boats in a formula class. For me it detracts from the F16 concept. Just my 2 cents.

Hopefully I'm not stomping to someones toes but probably because it fits into rules. The design might not contain latest development and thus in open class probably would have different handicaps but under formula rules they can be scored to class. Similar differences would even happen in OD (newer sails and stuff) so I don't think that it's that unfair.

It really would be unfair to say to certain group of sailors that we are not going to include you because you have this type boat even though you fit into rules.

--
Valtteri

Mosquitos don't fit in the F16 rules, they are too light and hence are "grandfathered". This can be changed by the F16 association if the mosquitos become too dominant.

So Mozzys can race with the F16s as long as they dont win or the rule will be changed?
Maybe I misinterpreted what you said and you are talking fleet numbers but 5 Mozzys out of a total of 8 F16s would also be considered dominant.
Why are F16s so heavy anyway?

Darryn
Mosquito
1782

Because we do doublehanded racing as a sloop with spi too !

And at a larger platform dimensions as well, the stiffness has to come from somewhere !

Wouter

The Mozzies aren't being considered real optimized F16s, just grandfathered F16s. They are being included because if they weren't, there wouldn't be an F16 class in Australia (or South Africa either). As you can see from the results, it wouldn't have been much of a race without them.

Until recently the Mosquitos and an occasional Taipan 4.9 were the only F16s in Aus. Then Gary built "Altered" and a few more Taipan4.9s started using spinnakers. Now the Cobras have joined in as well (with a handicap slower still than the Mozzies, if you're worried about the handicap).

In Australia we still don't have anyone manufacturing F16s (although two builders say they are "close"). That's what's really detracting from the F16 concept here.

(Quote)
“They are being included because if they weren't, there wouldn't be an F16 class in Australia (or South Africa either)”

I wouldn’t quite put it that way, instead I would say that the F16 is an exciting “concept” and the fact that, in Australia the concept has been adopted so readily by a group of Mosquitoes sailers and now the Cobras as well illustrates this as they are the classes that could “convert” their cats the most readily. The Mosquito and Cobra owners already own their cats and obviously really like them (and their respective classes) so why should they forsake them and all buy new fully compliant F16’s when with the least amount of outlay they can “upgrade” them to be able be a part of this F16 concept/family as well as being class legal in their own right by just removing the minimum amount of gear from their cats? Don’t worry; the advent of many more F16’s in Australia is only a matter of a few short months away. In South Australia alone, over this winter there is a minimum of four (maybe more) fully compliant F16’s (production Blades and Taipans) being readied/built for the next summer sailing season and together with the three or four that sailed last season will greatly boost the overall numbers here. There are new production F16 Blades being built as we speak with the first only a whisker away from sailing completion and the second well under way. So although the actual number of F16’s sailing (particularly fully compliant F16’s) has been a little slow in becoming apparent, that is definitely changing and the momentum is now growing and will be obvious to all sailers in the very near future. One of the main reasons (as I see it) that the advent of F16 numbers on the water has been slow to gather momentum is that virtually all of the sailers coming into F16 are experienced sailer who are coming from owning other cats and very few people who are already sailing within a class will just drop their allegiance to that class and hop into an entirely different class without thinking about it for some time. That time delay is now starting to happen and the transition seems to be well under way.
(although it's still nice to occasionally kick an F16's butt with an Alpha F14!!)

Sorry, forgot totally about the Mozzies weight and it's grandfathered status.

Anyway I still think that inlcuding Mozzies is good thing because there are lot of Mozzies at F16 regattas (at least scored to F16 class). I would be very happy to have a fleet of grandfathered boats to race with here in Finland, assuming that they would want to race with me <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />.

--
Valtteri

I don't think the mozzies will lose their grandfathered F16 status, atleast not in the short term, unless they make a big change to their class rules.

The F16's may get a run for their money at the moment by the top mozzies, but mozzies are relatively one design now and so their performance will stay close to what it is currently (it may pick up a bit with some more kite development). The F16 concept and the current designs still have a fair bit of development and maturing to go yet, it's performance will improve over time.

The crossover to F16 would be easy (as it should be!!) and fairly cheap except for the beam. Is there a minimum on the beam width?

Cutting a smaller jib would not be a difficult, is the self tacker a requirement or an option for the class? Thanks....<img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

No minimum beam.

Self tacker is optional.

Personally I wouldn't support voiding the Mozzie grandfather status ever. Loyalty must go both ways. I'm very impressed by the Mozzie sailors and their "Can-do" attitude. Basically they are sailing a sub optimal (with respect to F16 class rules) and making an impact. I think that should be high appreciated.

Indeed the Mozzies are underweight, but I think the South African ones are only by 10 kg or so. This is strong offset by the smaller sailarea total and other specs that are suboptimal.

Personally I think it is great to see the Cobra's enter the fun as well. I never envisioned a Hobie OD mentality for the F16 class. I don't believe "one size fits all". And such I welcome the continued participation of these boats in the F16 racing.

With respect to the claim that :"They are being included because if they weren't, there wouldn't be an F16 class in Australia (or South Africa either)" I want to underscore the fact that the sailors of these classes themselves approached us in order to become part of the F16 class. I saw no good reason to deny that request. And I still don't !

Wouter

Wouter,

Do you have the appropiate measurement points for the Mozzie to plug into the SCHRS calc. I'd be interested to see what they come out at.

Cheers

I'm currently putting F16 hulls under a Mozzie rig and beams, to later upgrade to full F16 rig and beams.

Problems with adding a larger rig and increased beam to mozzie hulls would be that it is no longer a mozzie, so it is not grandfathered, and the mozzie hulls are probably not big enough to support the minimum F16 weight.

The mozzie is only a grandfathered F16 if it measures as a mozzie. Are current measurement certificates required to prove this currently?

This didn't occur to me when putting a square head on my mozzie. As such, I wouldn't have measured as a mozzie and was wrongfully calling my boat an F16 without a mozzie or F16 measurement certificate. This will be fixed with the new hulls and spinnaker bringing me up to minimum weight, I think I need to change the jib and the mast tip weight also.

I used to have them till me harddrive crashed 2 years ago. This is one of those things that got lost. But I'm sure the Mozzie sailors can tell you.

Wouter

Hi Simon,

if you PM Tim he may be able to give you the measurments you need. I to would be interested what the SCHRS is like in comparison to other boats in the UK that we have in OZ. They are awesome cats for their rig size. Like the F16's in USA it appears the yardstick may be kind <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />. But we give the VYC as much info as we can and they have not moved the figure much, so we can't do any more <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />.

You should recommend them for those light weight F16 sailors in the UK, 65kg sailors can right them if all is well. They are just moulding another batch of hulls at the moment, as demand for new boats continue. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

I think Steve_Kwiksilver once did the calculations, but I don't know what he concluded.

Steve?

The class rules are here
Mosquito Building Rules and Regulations

The spinnaker rule is not yet included in the document but reads like:

21 SPINNAKER
"Either the NMCC or a state authority may choose to run an event in which the use of a spinnaker is permitted, in which case this rule shall apply. This rule also applies to Mosquito class boats sailing with a spinnaker at any other events."
21.1 The spinnaker pole shall be attached to the centre of the main beam, and shall be fixed in a fore and aft position.
21.2 No part of the spinnaker pole or its fittings may extend more than 3030mm from the front of the main beam.
21.3 The head of the spinnaker shall not be hoisted more than 6380mm from the top of the main beam.
21.4 The maximum luff length shall be 6950mm.
21.5 The maximum foot length shall be 3500mm.

Tim, I do not have the time to wade thru the class rules to get the rating points.

What I need is the following:


1, No of crew
2, No of crew on Trap
3, Min Weight of the boat incl sails etc in KG
4, Overall length
5, Max Beam
6, Max mainsail and mast area combined
7, Vertical luff length of sail (luff len will do)
8, Jib Area
9, Vertical luff of the jib (Luff will do)
10, max allowed Spi area
11, Max authorised board area
12, Max allowed depth below the hull
Note if 11 and 12 are not controlled I use the max value withing the rating formula.

Lengths in M, area in sqm please

Cheers

Simon

Hi Simon
Here are the numbers (some are my estimates but should be good enough).

1, No of crew - Cat 1, Sloop 2
2, No of crew on Trap - Cat 1, Sloop 2
3, Min Weight of the boat incl sails etc in KG - Cat 85kg, Sloop 95kg
4, Overall length - 4.9m
5, Max Beam - 2.185m
6, Max mainsail and mast area combined - 13.4sqm
7, Vertical luff length of sail (luff len will do) - 6.9m
8, Jib Area - 3.3sqm
9, Vertical luff of the jib (Luff will do) - 3.8m
10, max allowed Spi area - 14.2sqm
11, Max authorised board area - .23sqm
12, Max allowed depth below the hull - .77m


The centreboard size has been reduced over the years on Mosquitoes. The measurements I've given are the maximums possible in the rules but in reality any boat built in the last 10 years is using boards which are much smaller than the maximum.

Similarly for the spinnaker, the size I've shown is the typical spinnaker size we are currently using and is less than the maximum possible. There's no maximum area rule and it would be possible I'm sure to make a bigger spinnaker that would fit the measurements. But the reality is that over the years of spinnaker development, smaller ones have proven as fast but easier to handle. Some Mozzie sailors believe we could make the spinnaker smaller still without losing any performance.

This brings Alter cup to mind… <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Funny but it seems the neophyte F16 builders still have much to learn when it comes to practical application… <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Boy, are you full of it Bob.

You really don't understand what you talk about do you ?

Wouter

Texel ratings

Mozzie 1-up 105 (with spinnaker) (rounded off from 104.81 as required by Texel)

Mozzie 2-up 109 (with spinnaker) (rounded off from 108.56 as required by Texel)


Official F16 ratings under Texel are :

F16 1-up 101 (with spinnaker) (rounded off from 100.68 as required by Texel)

F16 2-up 102 (with spinnaker) (rounded off from 101.80 as required by Texel)



F18 is at 101 (with spinnaker)

and A-cat is at 101 (WITHOUT spinnaker)


Seems to me that the Mozzie in 1-up mode is quite performant with respect to full spec F16's. The 2-up Mozzie noticeable less so. A 4 points rating difference is only some 108 seconds (1 min 48 sec) per 45 min race. The 3 points rating difference to the 2-up F16's is only 81 secs difference in the same race. Of course the standard Taipan with spinnaker is rated at 102 in 1-up mode and 103 in 2-up mode, so here the rating differences to the 1-up Mozzie are even smaller. A 2 point rating difference is only 54 sec difference on the finishline after 45 min of bouyracing. That is a time difference that can easily be found between good crews on identical boats anyway.

Wouter

Just plugged the numbers into the SCHRS Calc to give an indication of rating.

SCHRS – one up 1.033. (note if the maximum plate rating is applied this would fall to 1.022)
SCHRS – two up 1.075. (note if the maximum plate rating is applied this would fall to 1.068)


For reference an F16 one up is 0.994, F16 two up is 1.020, F18 1.005 and Tornado 0.935.


All the current ratings are stored here

If the Mossies would like a formal rating calculated and then put onto the site, if someone can send me the class rules and a document referring to the page/line where each of the rating points are defined I will formally calculate a rating for them.

No maybe you don't understand. My point is that practical application equals time on water. That’s where it really matters and that’s something these Mozzie sailors have a lot of…. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

What would the SCHRS and Texel rating be for Mozzie 1up and 2up without spinnaker?

Darryn
Mozzie 1782

Darryn,

One up 1.08 (1.073 with maximised plates)
Two up 1.108 (1.101 with maximised plates)

No, YOU don't understand Bob, because you have absolutely no frigging idea of how much time, testing and on the water validation went into those new "neophyte F16 builders" boards. Which, by the way, really aren't very new.

They are the result of many years sailing (10 - 15) in an internationally very competitive singlehanded class. Three guesses which class that may be.

But despite the fact you know nothing of their origin and the fact that you also make totally unfounded assumptions, you still you feel free to spout all kinds of obvious nonsense about them on this public forum.

You have a undeniable responsibility to check your facts and avoid peddling obvious falsehoods. This responsibility is even recognized in common law by the duty to avoid slander.

I can tell you again Bob, you are totally in the dark on this. And I really wouldn't say that if you even had the slightest foundation on which you could base your comments.

But added to this is the fact that your statements can even be call moronic. That is because the "new" boards are smaller then the older Taipan boards, just as the mozzie boards are. In effect these Alter Cup boards are another confirmation of what you find so interesting in the mozzie boards. But wait a minute, a few weeks ago you were claiming the new boards are all wrong ! Obviously you haven't made up your own mind on what you REALLY think is best, because you can't believe both lines of thought at the same time. Either the Taipan boards are better, but then you have to disagree with the mozzie experience. Or you find the mozzie experience valid and then have to consider the new F16 boards as superiour to the old Taipan boards.

This doesn't suprise me much however as it is was already clear that you haven't looked at the specs in detail, you just blubber off whatever comes to your mind at the time as long as it is negative to the new board designs.

But THAT, my friend, is not how we do business or hold discussions in the F16 class. Never has been and never will be.

Wouter

Thanks Simon, that SCHRS site you provided the link for is very interesting, link below for VYC yardsticks which use results rather then calculations for their "reliable" yardsticks.
www.vic.yachting.org.au/site/yachting/vic/downloads/Yardsticks06_07.pdf

Comparing Hobie 16 which VYC think is faster then a Mozzie but using SCHRS H16 is slower which agrees with my experience.
Relative skill level is the wildcard again.

Wouter, your reply to Bob was ridiculously over top and drags the standard of the whole forum down, why not just pm that rubbish directly to Bob?

Darryn
Mozzie
1782

Hi Darryn

I agree most H16s we come across seem slower than Mosquitoes but I have seen some in VIC that destroy the best Mosquitoes in winds above 15 knots. They need the breeze to do it so who knows what the handicap difference should be on average. VYC is supposed to be a comparison between "well sailed" boats of each class, so the slow ones are not supposed to figure in the setting of the handicap.

The other interesting thing is the way cats are always rated faster than sloops on SCHRS. In the VYC system I've never seen this happen. Maricats, Taipans and Mozzies (in SA) all have sloops rated faster than cats.

Anyone - are there any SCHRS numbers for Taipan 4.9s?

Yeah, a steep bit of chop seemed to kill my performance on a mozzie compared with the H16.

Get me the rating points and I'll calculate an approximate rating

Hi Simon

I've extracted these numbers from the Taipan 4.9 rules and the AHPC site. They're probably about as accurate as the Mozzie figures I gave you!
Of course the Taipans have now changed their mainsail and I'm pretty sure these areas came from the old rules but lets not confuse things.

1, No of crew cat 1, sloop 2
2, No of crew on Trap cat 1, sloop 2
3, Min Weight of the boat incl sails etc in KG - cat 97kg, sloop 102kg
4, Overall length - 4.95m
5, Max Beam - 2.34m
6, Max mainsail and mast area combined - 1.28sqm + 13.7sqm
7, Vertical luff length of sail (luff len will do) - 8.05m
8, Jib Area - 4.2sqm
9, Vertical luff of the jib (Luff will do) - 5.04m
10, max allowed Spi area - 17.5sqm
11, Max authorised board area - 0.215sqm
12, Max allowed depth below the hull - 0.65m

OK< I'll try and do this tonight (just off out to The City).

Or you can do it yourself by downloading the clac routing from the ratings page on the SCHRS website www.schrs.com

Corrections Taipan specs :



Is wrong the real area is 1.40 sq. for mast and 14.58 combined mainsail+mast. At least that is what Texel has measured in the past.




Since many years the Taipan are using smaller boards then allowed in the class rules. The AHPC boards area protruding 0.55 mtr below the keel line and have a width of 0.290 mtr. Their area per board is therefor 0.1595 sq. mtr.

As you can see (Buccaneer) the current Taipan boards are significantly smaller then the very original ones late 80's. Of course the new F16 boards (not used by taipans yet) are another extention of this trend.

Wouter

So there is no room for disagreement without insults? <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> Is that your rule? <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />
For you my friend the doctor recommends more time on the water and less time getting red faced at computer. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Happy sailing, <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I dont know how old you are or how much computer experience you have, but.. In the early days (80s) the professional workstation displays could in some cases have strong enough emission as to make you red faced if you sat in front of it long enough <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I thought the narrow board trend came out of the America's Cup. Please correct me if I am wrong, but at the A worlds in NZ which was soon after the 2003 Americas Cup one of the Team NZ designers put the A through the program and found that the boards at that time on the Flyer were too wide. By moving to the high aspect board currently seen on the A and keeping everything else equal, the boat would be 6 boat lengths quicker to the top mark on a 1nm beat. Don't know what wind strength they were using and the other assumptions, but this started the trend to these boards in Aus starting in late'03/04. One of the A sailors brought these back to Oz for the Flyers with converter kits.

Don't know how the high aspect boards would work on a Taipan as there are different fundamental aspects to the rocker compared to a Flyer (or the F16 case the Blade).

I know that when I first sailed the Blade with their slightly longer retro-fitted Taipan boards, I felt that this one of the boat's weaknesses. It just didn't feel right with the board lift etc. I had just spent a week sailing a Capricorn so knew what to expect but the stubby fat Blade boards just didn't compare.

I know that the AC has changed foil design in race yachts with most new designs having thin narrow sections with large T-bulb. Interesting to see how this has crossed over to cats.

Cheers

Bob, I like you (we go way back in the way of communication, 2000 I think) and I would gladly go for a beer with you and have a laugh. It is just that you are so far off track with your board comments, and repeately so, that it has to stop. Come back and give us your opinion when you have spend the effort to form a COHERENT opinion. Right now you have only written down certifiable nonsense that often contradicts itself.

No ill feelings outside of this particular disagreement from my side.

Wouter

Long daggerboards (high aspect) were already persent on the Nacra Inter-18 = F18 (nacra inter 20) as early as 1995. The trend already started here with respect to high aspect daggerboards. The A's were a little late with regard to this development but have since then moved to the forefront of it.

Interestingly enough the Blade with the old boards would point a little higher to the Taipan in the 1-on-1 testing. But I do think the new design is better, although not by a huge amount.

I feel the Taipan gets a significant portion of the pointing from the hulls itself and so it could well favour the board design it has now.

It is certainly true that you don't want to lift the board to early on the Blade. But then again I only lift them on my taipan when it is howling.

Wouter

given people are dis-agreeing on plate sizes I put in a size that made them rate the fastest

one up 0.983
two up 1.006

erm that wasn't emissions. It had more to do with frustration getting the thing to work properly. Still happens a fair bit.

Tiger Mike

F16 cat 0.994
F16 sloop 1.020
Taipan cat 0.983
Taipan sloop 1.006
F18 1.005

So the Taipan is rated faster than the F16, and the cat is faster than an F18!
And that's before we add the new main - maybe my numbers are not right. Doesn't make much sense otherwise.

You bring a tear to my glass eye Wouter ,for someone so pedantic you should consider what you type before you send it .

Frigging :

frig

• verb (frigged, frigging) vulgar slang 1 have sexual intercourse with. 2 masturbate.

— ORIGIN originally in sense move restlessly, later rub, chafe: of unknown origin.


Perform another search of the Compact Oxford English Dictionary

Is this your intention ? <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In this part of the world "feking" is becoming a more accepted word for the one you so unskillfully avoid

Keep it up , someone has too <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I used wouters mainsail + mast measurement



Lighter boat, similar size sails. IMO should be faster.

Or, put another way - shorter, narrower, smaller sails, 20 yo design and only 7kg lighter - how could it possibly be as fast?

As for a cat rigged Taipan being rated faster than an F18 - I know which one I'd choose in a boat for boat race. It makes me think the SCHRS is weighted very favourably for the bigger cats.

Or is it just heavier cats?
In the Mozzies we have a "heavyweight" division for older boats, where the minimum weight is an extra 10kg. How do the Mosquito numbers come out with 10kg of extra weight added? I'd be interested to see the difference.

Tim,

we don't have much data coming from Aus, if you have results in a sailwave format, please send them to me and I'll store them up for later test fleet races. I also need as much info about the course as possible, tide state and direction, if it turned during the race and at what time (if available), wind speed, sea state and some idea of the level of skill across the fleet. This may sound like a lot of info, but it's usefull as we can then try and iron out any strange results (consider a w/l race, one lap light wind with strong tide). We would expect an A class to do well in this race as they do have very good performance upwind and in this race the boats would spend a longer time sailing upwind on the race.

As for numbers, download the utility from here and have a play with it yourself !

I just did! 10kg didn't make as much difference as I expected. I'll just have to sail faster I guess, if weighing the boat down won't do it.

I think Simon has made a few typo's in the calculations and that is the cause of the weird rating numbers.

If I punch in the specs of the Taipan 4.9 (NO SPI !) into the schrs calculator (off the www.schrs.com website) then I find :

Taipan 4.9 sloop no spi = 1.055
Taipan 4.9 cat no spi = 1.058

With spinnakers we get

Taipan 4.9 sloop + spi = 1.025
Taipan 4.9 cat + spi = 1.008

As you see these numbers are very close to the ones for the F16's

F16 2-up = 1.020
F16 1-up = 0.994

(Texel has F16 2-up = 102, F16 1-up = 101)


Specs used for the Taipan (real measurements) :

mainsail + mast : 14.58
mainsail luff : 8.03 mtr
jib 4.08 sq. mtr.
jib luff : 4.85 mtr.
weight ready to sail : 102 kg
length : 4.95 mtr.
width : 2.34 mtr.
board area : 0.160
board depth : 0.550

Wouter

Wouter, what do you get with aspect ratio 4.5 on the plates. (IIRC i ised area .223 and depth 1m (just to get 4.5 aspect ratio)) If you re-read my post I said I used max plate ratio as people were arguing about actual plate sizes.

Yes, but since then people have intepreted your rating numbers as being for the standard Taipan 4.9; of which they have a feel for actually performance. Either way, a larger misunderstanding is perpetuated.


Also



Is a rediculous set of specs for Taipan or F16 boards. It will make the boat bad behaved and mostly likely significantly slower in all conditions as the board will not be operating at the optimal angle of attack. (best lift to drag ratio).

from very earlier onwards (I think a year after the design waslaunched) the Taipan boards were made narrower and maybe also shorter. Since then the board area (per board) = 0.290 * 0.55 = 0.1595 and the wetted depth is 0.550 mtr. This has not changed since then. The max specs given in the Taipan class rules are useless as no-one is even getting close to those. If more then 10 boats out of 325 build still sail with the old original daggerboards then I would be surprised.

Also 1 mtr long boards (as in wetted length) are unrealistic For Taipan's and F16's. For reasons of optimal lift to drag ratios you'll need a minimal angle of attack and this requirement limits the boards area for these boats to 0.185 sq. mtr. or less (preferably slightly less). In order for such a board to be 1 mtr long it needs to be 185 mm wide or less. This is too little to make the board both strong and stiff enough. So this board can not be build in an economic viable way. Of course, a custom board can but you'll be pouring that full of carbon cloth to get at the required specs.

Commercial builders however won't take these risks for their production boats, especially not when such boards are not really attractive because of the ease of stalling them or "tripping" over them. Both well proven disadvantages of very long/high aspect boards.

So up till now all builders are converging on F16 boards that are around 0.75 mtr long and on average just under 0.200 mtr wide. Resulting in rougly 0.150 sq.mtr. area and averaged aspect ratio's of 4.

I think your own boards, Simon, are the only exception to this rule at this time.

Wouter

Yep, and they appear to be working well <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />