Voting on proposed rule amendments for 2008

All members:

Voting is now open to all owners of F16 catamarans in respect of 3 currently proposed rule amendments for 2008. The voting will be completed at the AGM in Zandvoort during August this year. If any amendments are carried they will be in force for 2008.

To vote:

1. Log into the F16 Public forum at www.letshaveachat.com

F16 Public Forum

2. Register your details

3. Once approved you will be granted access to the voting area

4. There are three ballots at present, you may only vote once in each ballot

5. Please note that this is a public vote and therefore your vote will be visible to other voters (this is just as it would be if a vote were held at an AGM)

6. Any discussion on the merits of any ballot item may be held here on Catsailor but please note that the current wording of each ballot will not be amended. You may only Agree/Disagree with each ballot.

Thank you.

Simon,
Am I reading your forum instructions correctly? Each person has to start a new THREAD with their details, not just reply to your initial post in the Welcome thread?

Do I understand it correctly that when a sailor is not entirely happy with a change that the only way to amend the proposed change is to first vote it down and hope that afterwards a newly worded change is proposed ?

Would it be smart to allow for a third option in the vote where by the voter can indicate that he or she disapproves of the proposed change in the current wording but not necessarily disagrees with the goal of the change ?

Wouter

These are the 3 ballots on which you are being asked for your views:

[color:"blue"] Ballot Nr. 1
In the rules it states: [/color]
1.12 The mainsail

1.12.1 The Mast & mainsail area may not be larger than 15 sq. metres.

1.12.2 The Mainsail luff length may not be longer than 8.1 metre (= 8100 mm).

Where :

Mast & mainsail area = (mainsail area + ½ * mast area)

Mainsail area = all of the mainsail surface area that is outside of the mast while sailing.

Mast area = mainsail luff length multiplied by the circumference of the mast.

Mainsail luff length is defined as : the distance measured alongside the (straight) mast from the
highest point of a normally hoisted mainsail towards the lowest point reached
when the downhaul is used.

[color:"red"] The F16 Governing Council Proposal :
[/color]
1.12 The mainsail


1.12.1 The Mast & mainsail area may not be larger than 15 sq. metres.

1.12.2 The Mainsail luff length may not be longer than 8.1 metre (= 8100 mm).


Where :

Mast & mainsail area = (mainsail area + mast area)

Mainsail area = all of the mainsail surface area that is outside of the mast while sailing, measured in accordance with ISAF measurement rules.

Mast area = mast length *maximum circumference of the mast * 0.5


[color:"blue"] Ballot nr 2:
[/color]
[color:"red"] F16 Governing Council Proposal to add: [/color]

1.6.4 For the avoidance of doubt, daggerboards/centerboards will conform to the following :

a) Curved/’Banana’ boards will not be allowed.
b) Assymetrical cross-section profile boards will be allowed.
c) Fore/aft movement of the boards when in the down position will not be allowed.
d) End fences/horizontal appendages below the waterline will not be allowed. The board shall be capable of removal, without tools, via the upper opening of the case.
e) There will be no limitation on the daggerboard/centerboard length


[color:"blue"] Ballot nr 3:

In the rules it states: [/color]
Prologue: The Formula 16 class
The Formula 16 class for high performance beach catamarans is a mildly restricted class, reserved for sport catamarans that may be sailed either doublehanded or singlehanded. The designs are of amateur or professional construction and are intended for racing on elapsed time with respect to other Formula 16 designs, as well as Formula 18 class designs.

[color:"red"] F16 Governing Council Proposal : [/color]

Prologue: The Formula 16 class
The Formula 16 class for high performance beach catamarans is a mildly restricted class, reserved for sport catamarans that may be sailed either doublehanded or singlehanded without time adjustment. The designs are of amateur or professional construction and are intended for racing on elapsed time with respect to other Formula 16 designs.

On this occasion Wouter that is exactly what we are saying. The proposed wording has been debated at great length by the F16GC and views sought from boat builders, sailmakers and ISAF measurers on the best wording to use. If the membership are unhappy with the chosen wording then they must disagree with the proposed amendment. They will, of course, have the opportunity to propose alternative wording which would then require a further ballot but it is unlikely that this could be achieved before Zandvoort.

John,

It would be very interesting to hear the F16GC's reasoning for each of these changes. i.e. what problem are we trying to solve with these changes?

Although I think I can see what's trying to be achieved with the sail area rule, do we not risk making existing sails illegal, as you're effectively increasing the rated area of the mast?

Paul

F16 secretary,

Understood.

I have one further question. For me personally it is of interest how the boats that transition from compliant to non-compliant by a rule change are required to continue as F16's. Meaning how will these boats be handled under the new rules and/or will they be forced to buy new gear or have parts rebuild to become compliant again.

To give an example : In the new rules more mast area is included in the mainsail sail measurement, making the total area of the mainsail itself smaller. If a F16 sailor has a newly cut mainsail that is optimized but compliant under the current rules (like maybe the Alter Cup boats) with a total area of 14.95 sq. mtr, then adding the bottom section of the mast(area wise) will make him non-compliant at 15.02 sq. mtr. Will this sailor be allowed to use this mainsail till it is destroyed or thrown away or is he required to actively recut it ?

In effect, what I'm asking for is to include (in the voting) the procedure for dealing with formerly compliant parts that become non-compliant if the change is accepted. I think this should be an integral part of a proposed change.

Wouter

Yes; that way it is easy for me to remove their details once they have been confirmed as bona-fide F16 ers as I can just remove that thread from the public forum(if requested to do so). If people reply to a thread with their details, I need to EDIT that thread to remove their detials. Editing takes me much more time than simply removing a thread from the forum.

My request for people to start a new THREAD is simply to same me admin time.

On this subject, I notice that Someone called Wouter has joined and not posted their details; please would Wouter confirm his details in the appropiate place and I will allow that user to see the polls.

Dear F16 sailors,

The mainsail area change is proposed because of the following. If we say the Mast area = mainsail luff length multiplied by the circumference of the mast and we start pulling on the luff the area will be increasing and will pass the 15 sqm if we pull hard enough. When you are using a dacron sail the area will be bigger than 15 sqm in compare to a pentex sail because you can not stretch this sail more than a dacron sail.. The other reason is that it is not possible to measure the exact area when starting to pull on the luff because during sailing this is a variable, so the area will change constantly and also a change of bigger than 15 sqm.
When we are saying the total mast length is taken than we can calculate a distance where you are can pull the luff to to reach the 15 sqm and this will be the point where the blackband is put. So with a maximum luff length of 8100 mm the sailmakers know exact what to do and they are able to make a sail that will comply with the rules always, and the sailors are not at risk of sailing with a bigger sail than 15 sqm.

This change will also bring us more in line with the ISAF classes so that our measurement is more typical of other International classes, and according the ISAF measurement rules.

With regard to the sails built earlier, we as F16GC have said that there will be no ban of these sails and people don't have to buy new or re cut the sails, we want to say that there is a transition time for these sails. Normally when you are racing in competiton every 2 to 3 years you need a new sail to keep at the front of the fleet and keep up to date. So the transition period is 2008 and 2009, and if after this time there are still older sails in use this will be accepted during events (global challenge, nationals etc) if the event organisation ( measurer) and F16GC are advised of it. We don't want that people should have extra costs because of these rule changes.

I dont see the difference between the two wordings here as it clearly would be against the intention of the rules to use the downhaul to 'stretch' the sail to make it bigger. If this is an issue, put a black "measurement mark" at the max hoist height and another at the lower limit. Sails not allowed outside these two measurement marks. I believe this is the "standard" in other classes which regulate luff length. Putting the gooseneck at the lower measurement band effectively stop anyone from downhauling below the mark.

The real question here in my opinion is wether the F16 class need a smaller mainsail? Or are there other reasons (except what Hans brought up) for decreasing sail area?


As long as we are talking about masts. I suppose we will not see many tapered masts in the F-16 class, as you loose effective area.

Rolf,

Please go to the F16 class website and look at the measurement form. We already have a "black band" in the rules. The change that the F16GC are proposing assist in the clarification of this.

No limit? <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> Why what's the limit now? ... <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Rolf,
I believe the Stealth mast are tapered.
Regards,
Phill

Buccaneer,

That's the point - there is no limit on length at present. The proposal is to provide further clarification in the ruleset.

We have in the past been asked "where do I/we find the max daggerboard length in the rules?" (amongst other questions that we are now addressing) This amendment to the rules addresses that.

Simon,

As I see it the main difference regarding sail area is how the masts surface area is calculated.

Current rule:
Mast area = mainsail luff length multiplied by the circumference of the mast.


Proposed rule:
Mast area = mast length *maximum circumference of the mast * 0.5


Mast length is longer than max luff length, which means that the area of the mast under the lower measurement mark now is included in total mainsail area?

Would it not make more sense to increase total sail area by an amount equivalent to the typical area of mast below the luff on a current F16? This would mean that an existing, fully-optimised F16 would come out very close to fully-optimised under the new rules, and there would be no net decrease in sail area for new boats.

Or is the mast area we're talking about so small that we shouldn't worry about it?

Paul

Yes, so the rule counts 1/2 the area of the mast that does not have sail attached; yes, sails will get a little less in theory; but in order to get a sail to measure is must have less than 15sqm in it anyway.

Edit to respond to Paul's comments; I'd bet if you got your sail measured, the all up area would be somewhere less than 15sqm; I'm guessing mine is about 14.8 including mast.

Rolf,
I am surprised that it is 0.5 X max circumference.
Is this for the entire length?
When the A class had tapered mast I thought they calculated the taper.
If not this would disadvantage the Stealths.

Is your F16 mast tapered?

Regards,
Phill

Dear F16 sailors,

Please have also a look at website of the F16, there you will find a working Excel sheet of the measurement form and when you play around with that you will see what is happening. This will make the whole rule proposal change much more clear i think.

My understanding is that all the newer sails (2007) should measure under the new wording. Some of the earlier sails will too. However the vast majority of 06 and earlier sails will be marginally too large to measure in. If you recall at last years UK Nats, Geert demonstrated this point with the Blade sail and the two different Stealth sails he had available.

The amount of area under discussion is, I think, approx 0.06 sq m?

If you see the A-class than there is also a possiblity for tapered masts in the calculations as it was in the early days when they still had the alu masts. Most of these where tapered, specially the 10 mtr long one's. When they changed to around 9 mtr's the tapering dissapered and also with the coming of the carbon masts.
In the measurement form of the F16 there is also the possiblity for tapered masts.

Hans and the others seem to have done their homework very well. I'm inclined to vote "yes" on all three ballots.

Anyone care to argue the other side of the questions?

I have a mainsail from Glenn Asby, made in 2005. It was measured last week by an official measurer and it complies to the proposed new rules. So I suppose there are no problems for people with an "old" Asby sail.

They all look like good amendments.

Please correct me if I am wrong.
I read these propositions in relation to underwater foils to only impact on the centre/dagger boards? Is that correct?
The addition of "wing foils" to the bottom of the dagger/centre boards will not be allowed, but the addition of "T" foils on the rudders will still be class legal?
(This proposition doesn’t address the potential (as far as I see it) of complying with the, no wing on centre/dagger boards but separate forward mounted side hinging hydrofoils could still be incorporated within the box rule of the class)

Is this not covered by there shall be a maximum of one pair of centreboards rule?

[color:"blue"] 1.6.2 In addition to the rudders the platform may also be equipped with a pair of daggerboards or centerboards.
[/color]

Any additional foils would surely be construed as additional centreboards?

But they would not be either centre boards nor dagger boards, they would be bow mounted and offset either in from the inside of the hull or offset on the outside of the hull probably up to some 300mm away from the actual side "wall" of the hull, and able to be swung up out of the water and down when wanted, sideways.

Then Darryl,

Such a development could be caught under:

[color:"blue"] 2.6 Spirit of the Rule

2.6.1 In case of doubt, the intention of the rule makers, which is the spirit, shall
take precedence over the letter of the rule.

2.6.2 The spirit of the rule includes, among other principles, the following considerations :

2.6.2.A Preserving general equality in overall performance between craft of different make, accepting small variations, in order to guarantee fair racing between designs of different make.

2.6.2.B Maximizing the freedom to optimize a design to personal preference and to improve the performance of a given crew and craft through refinement.

2.6.2.C The allowance to gently improve, by design, the handling and overal behaviour of a craft in small controlled steps which don't upset the balance in the class to the extent that the continued existence and growth of the class are no longer guaranteed. [/color]

or:

[color:"blue"] 2.7.3 All amendments, changes or additions shall be placed on one pre-next-season notice unless the Formula 16 authoriy considers it to be essential to act immediately to prohibit or penalize a dangerous feature. [/color]

This kind of also answers scooby_simon's question about retrospective banning of adjustable T-foil rudders that turn out to be a quantum leap in boat performance.

I really tried to start a new thread but can't find out how. I can't reply to any posts so I've send you my details per catsailor private mail.

I hope that will suffice.

Wouter

Wouter. No one else has had problems; I mave sent you detailed instructions via PM

It appears that my browser isn't loading all items in the page and this probably includes some menu bar with the control buttons. I will look further into it.

Wouter

You PM box is Full;

What browser are you using. I have tested this with IE7 and Firefix 2.something.....

personally I have no wish to add another web site to the list potential security/privacy holes my system has.

How does the F16 council propose to get around voters who either are not online or like myself dont wish to give details to another website for theit marketing use?

I am the owner and administrator of www.letshaveachat.com. Your details will not be used by any organisation other than the administration of the letshaveachat website; If you require I will remove your details from the the letshaveachat.com F16 introductions forum as soon (as practical) after you have posted in that forum.; all that will remain will be the information you put into your public profile.

Still doesnt answer the question but thanks for trying..

What methods are available for people who are legit F16 owners & sailors who either wont or cant get into
www.letshaveachat.com ??


Second question when was the vote for the current F16 council?

Try emailing f16gc@formula16.org . In answer to your previous question: whilst it would be nice to be able to offer a "single sign-on" for all F16 business through the formula16.org website, doing so takes time and effort (probably mine) and it isn't going to happen for this year. I'm very grateful to Simon for arranging this at short notice through his website.



There was no vote. There was a call for volunteers made on this site last year, and the number of volunteers was pretty much equal to the number of positions that we looked to fill. Even if we had been overwhelmed by volunteers, I assume that you can see the bootstrapping problem of arranging a vote for council members before a council exists to organise a vote.

Committee elections typically take place at the AGM, and I suspect that the F16GC will be doing the same at the Zandvoort AGM.

Would you like to put your name forward for a position on the council for next year?

Paul

Paul,

Implementing the software that is behind the lethaveachat forum is not a difficult task. Software licence is approx £180. It took me a couple of weeks to setup.

I am happy to continue to host these polls for as long as is required. The www.letshaveachat.com forum and web site was something I played around with a little while ago with grad ideas for a sports based forum but never got around to developing, it will probably sit in cyberspace until I get around to doing something with it.

I would like to re-iterate that I am the sole administator of the site, no other parties have any access to any details you provide - [color:"red"] excepting what you put in your on-line profile [/color]

I think we must see the GC as the first step from transitioning the F16 class from a hierarchical run organisation (under my persona) to a democratically run organisation (with voted GC members).

The step from me being the only real class official with power to a council with three equally powerful officials is a big one towards placing more power with the class members.

The step to arrive at elected council members is now only a small one.

Wouter

Well may I say that is very nice Simon... Though from past experiences in this medium Im not easily convinced.. Thrice bitten and all that...


However...
The poles should be open to non web users as well as web users.. If we wish to have a legit entity...

I must have missed the call.. Probably dodging bullets in South Sudan at the time..

I have been asked and I have accepted to help the "Australian F16 council" in what ever capacity is required..
To sit in any position on the "International F16 council" I am not sure how I can do it justice.

Currently I am on boards of three international companies and one national corp. CEO of another, President of a state professional association and finally chair a technical committee.. So my emotional, physical and mental energy is fairly well drained..

Stewart

Your decision.

I have now also created another forum when persons details who register will be moved once validated. This forum is NOT indexable or seachable via the search engines and is NOT viewable by the general public.

To those people who wish to vote in the ballots but do not wish to use the online voting facility:

You may vote by post. To do so simply cut and paste the following into a Word processor document:

[color:"blue"] Ballot nr 1:
In the rules it states:
1.12 The mainsail

1.12.1 The Mast & mainsail area may not be larger than 15 sq. metres.

1.12.2 The Mainsail luff length may not be longer than 8.1 metre (= 8100 mm).

Where :

Mast & mainsail area = (mainsail area + ½ * mast area)

Mainsail area = all of the mainsail surface area that is outside of the mast while sailing.

Mast area = mainsail luff length multiplied by the circumference of the mast.

Mainsail luff length is defined as : the distance measured alongside the (straight) mast from the
highest point of a normally hoisted mainsail towards the lowest point reached
when the downhaul is used.
The F16 Governing Council Proposal :


1.12 The mainsail


1.12.1 The Mast & mainsail area may not be larger than 15 sq. metres.

1.12.2 The Mainsail luff length may not be longer than 8.1 metre (= 8100 mm).


Where :

Mast & mainsail area = (mainsail area + mast area)

Mainsail area = all of the mainsail surface area that is outside of the mast while sailing, measured in accordance with ISAF measurement rules.

Mast area = mast length *maximum circumference of the mast * 0.5


Ballot nr 2:

F16 Governing Council Proposal to add:

1.6.4 For the avoidance of doubt, daggerboards/centerboards will conform to the following :

a) Curved/’Banana’ boards will not be allowed.
b) Assymetrical cross-section profile boards will be allowed.
c) Fore/aft movement of the boards when in the down position will not be allowed.
d) End fences/horizontal appendages below the waterline will not be allowed. The board shall be capable of removal, without tools, via the upper opening of the case.
e) There will be no limitation on the daggerboard/centerboard length


Ballot nr 3:

In the rules it states:
Prologue: The Formula 16 class
The Formula 16 class for high performance beach catamarans is a mildly restricted class, reserved for sport catamarans that may be sailed either doublehanded or singlehanded. The designs are of amateur or professional construction and are intended for racing on elapsed time with respect to other Formula 16 designs, as well as Formula 18 class designs.

F16 Governing Council Proposal :

Prologue: The Formula 16 class
The Formula 16 class for high performance beach catamarans is a mildly restricted class, reserved for sport catamarans that may be sailed either doublehanded or singlehanded without time adjustment. The designs are of amateur or professional construction and are intended for racing on elapsed time with respect to other Formula 16 designs.
[/color]

Now add either of the comments Agree or Disagree to each of the ballots according to your view.

Now add your details: Contact information, Boat details incl Sail No

You may then mail the completed ballots to:

The F16 Governing Council
c/o Catamaranparts.nl
Voltastraat 5
2041 CK Zandvoort

to arrive no later than 25th July 2007

I have no doubt why the following was proposed:
1.6.4 For the avoidance of doubt, daggerboards/centerboards will conform to the following :

a) Curved/’Banana’ boards will not be allowed.
b) Assymetrical cross-section profile boards will be allowed.
c) Fore/aft movement of the boards when in the down position will not be allowed.
d) End fences/horizontal appendages below the waterline will not be allowed. The board shall be capable of removal, without tools, via the upper opening of the case.
e) There will be no limitation on the daggerboard/centerboard length


But I'm wondering if the requirement- "The board shall be capable of removal, without tools, via the upper opening of the case."
Might "disallow" some hinged centerboards which otherwise would be legal in every respect??

Just a thought-- Are the Mosquito/Isotope/etc. centerboards all able to be removed "without tools" via the upper opening of the case??
<img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
Kirt

Mosquitos have daggerboards...Stingrays however have retracting centreboards like a tornado.

Can the wording be changed to allow retracting centreboards?

But centerboards are removable via the upper opening if designed well. Usually the pivot pin (a piece of tubing) slides down two slots in the centerboard well.

I'm not aware of any existing cats, that would otherwise fit into the F16 box rule, that need tools to remove their pivoting centreboards - or that cannot be removed via the deck opening of the case. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Hi all,

Cobras would fit in F16 rule I think, they have pivoting centreboards. No idea of if they can come out the top of case with out tools <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />. Up to date I am not realy aware of them wanting to participate in F16 racing, but a number have spinnakers in Victoria and there is one Cobra in Europe.

So maybe the wording needs looking at to save problems in the future <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />. That is of course if the proposers want to and it got passed. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Cobra centreboards can be removed without tools (and it's via the top of the case).

** BUMP **

And a reminder that voting online finishes at midnight GMT on 27th June 2007

Hi all,

was about to head away from computer access with work for a few days. Then remembered had to vote before 27th.

So treat this as a reminder and don't let the rest of this post put you off. I am sure it is just me.

Is it just me <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> or is it difficult to find your way to the place to Vote. Took me a couple of looks. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Just looking at the number of voters, I was concerned that the difficulty may keep the voting numbers low. Or is it just me <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />.

No criticsm of Scooby's efforts in setting all this up intended. Greatly appreciate these efforts. I am sure it is difficult for people that have grown up with computers and use them every day to understand, how computer challenged some of us are <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />.

But if I managed it, I am sure others that read this will be able.

Everybody register and VOTE !

It was demanded that the voting was to be online and accessible to all, so now make use of that won right.

That includes also those who have bought building plans, are still building or have modified boats.

Don't for one second feel that only the top sailors or very vocal class members have a right to vote. EVERYBODY has a right to vote and personally I also think that voting is very close to being compulsory.

Wouter

I shall make no secret of my opposition to accepting ballot number 1, although I did wait to the very last day to make it public knowlegde.

Ballot number 1 is the proposal were the maximal allowed area of the mainsail + mast is redefined.




I feel that a better proposal would have been to redefine the rule :

"Mast area = mainsail luff length multiplied by the circumference of the mast"

to

"Mast area = the max allowed mainsail luff length of 8.100 mtr multiplied by the circumference of the mast."


This would have garanteed that all current mainsails would still be compliant with the new rules. No exceptions are possible, neither in theory nor praxis.

Also it would have kept our mainsails at the maximal effective surface area. The part of the mast below the boom and therefor without a sail behind it is not in any way effective surface area. It does not produce any drive except negative drive (=drag) and therefor should not be considered part of the engine.

This line of reasoning was a main criterium when founding the class and composing the first rule sets. Only items that are unmistakenly performance enhancing must be ruled upon. No gut feelings or pseudo scientific believes should be implementing in the F16 rule set.

Interestingly enough. The F18 class and F20 also do not include the WHOLE mast area in their limits only the part that has a sail behind it. I think the F16 class should stay with that principle and not go with the A-cat setup where extremely low booms are the norm rather then the exception. Low booms simple don't work well on 2-up boats. This was one reason why in the past the rules were explicetly written to not enclude any items below the boom as to avoid any stimulating of unfavourable setups. It was intended to stimulate keeping the boom sufficiently high of the trampoline.

Another argument was that we didn't want to cause a split between the surface area determined by the rating systems of Texel and ISAF (schrs) and the F16 class rules. A thing that will happen with the proposed modification. This is because neither Texel nor SCHRS regard the portion of the mast that is not followed by the sail itself to be effective sailarea. This while the proposed modification actually do consider is effective sailarea.

Therefor I believe the proposed modifications actually do not reduce confusion by actually maintain it, albeit of a different kind. That, in my opinion, is enough to vote against the proposed rule change. Not because I disagree with modifying this particular rule but because the proposed change is insufficiently better. Especially since a much better modification is available.

If this proposal is accepted I will put in a counterproposal along the lines of what is given earlier in this posting.

Wouter

Very nice Wouter. Way to go! - wait until the last day for online voting!! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

What is the matter with you? If you've got a logical, properly reasoned point about a proposal that's up for consideration why wait to the very last moment????

With what you're now doing - despite all your bluster about the good of the class BLAH BLAH BLAH... You're now proposing that once this rule amendment is voted on (and possibly passed) you'll open it up to debate AGAIN by proposing yet another rule amendment?

For chrissakes Wouter, can't you just let go and let the class determine it's own future? STOP MEDDLING!!!!

Rant over. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

PS you'll note this post is by me as an F16 owner and NOT as secretary.

Timing of posts is essential isn't it <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Wouter wrote:


While our class secretary wrote in the first post:


I've searched trough the rules again, and I can not find the definition of who is eligible to vote. Am I too sloppy when searching, or? Is voting really open to plan owners (defined as virtual boat owners perhaps?).
Personally I think only boat owners should have a say.

3. Membership
Any catamaran enthusiast may apply for membership of the Formula 16 Association of (Insert country/region) and be granted one of the following forms of membership following payment of the prescribed membership fee.
a) Types of membership
i) Full Membership is available to persons involved in Formula 16 class racing.
ii) Supporting Membership shall be available to those who do not actively race the F16 but would like to support the class and participate in social events. This may include sail makers, builders, designers or supporting friends and family interested in promoting and participating in class activities.
iii) Life Membership shall be available to those in recognition of exceptional past service. The AGM shall have the power to award life membership by a simple 75% majority.


Only Full members and Life Members may vote in ballots. Therefore it seems to be an inherent requirement that the member not only owns an F16 but races it. If a person has purchased a set of plans and is in the process of building an F16 or F16s then I think that the F16GC would need to rule on that individuals elegibility to vote. On the assumption that the individual is genuinely building an F16, it is unlikely that the F16GC would rule against that person voting since they have a genuine interest in the future of the class. Equally, if a person has merely purchased plans but has not yet commenced building or has made little or no progress over a considerable period of time, it is likely that persons voting rights would be removed or disallowed.

This is only my take on the 'spirit of the rule' and a full council meeting may view an individual situation differently.

At present, of course, noone is a full member of the F16 Association so for this first WGM at Zandvoort and associated voting we are accepting votes from all persons who own F16s or are in the process of building one. From 2008 we WILL enforce the clauses of the Constitution.

Two reasons for this ;

First, like this everybody had ample occassion to make up their own minds about the proposed changes without any danger form my "meddling". I couldn't do it weeks ago as then you would have claimed that I was influencing people before they had a change to work things out themselfs "=meddling". No matter what I do (or did) I will get blamed for some wrong doing anyway.

Secondly :

Who says that my comments hadn't been put up for consideration earlier.

If that is what you think then my question is why my comments haven't reached you 2 months ago. Don't blame me for internal communication failings inside the governing council. And since it is now clear that that route didn't work very well, answer me this. What other route do I have as a normal class member (not an official in any way) to reintroduce my comments ?

Exactly, the forum ; in combo with the method deviced for processing idea's and modifications. It was stated precisely that established proposals could only be "voted in" or "voted out". Amending the wording was not a possibility, neither was cancelling a vote.

The current GC constructed this framework and I'm only using the pathways that are available to me at this time. Don't blame me for it; if anything it is not my fault.

And I certainly don't appreciate the fact that I get yelled at by you in this respect. I took the only possible route that was available to me.

Wouter


P.S. This is not the complete picture of downsides and why I feel the proposed modification is less then attractive. If desired then I'm willing to make a rigurous document out of it. One that clearly identifies all aspects and how the modification could be worded better. Right now I have to do several hours of fuzzy logic control design (again)

Maybe I should take those statements back as I'm not an F16 class official in any shape or form so my comments in this may well be void of any meaning.

Wouter

Could the committee please clarify
"Full Membership is available to persons involved in Formula 16 class racing"

Since there are a few who race their F16 in open fleets as opposed to F16 events is this classified as "Formula 16 racing"?

Stewart

Stewart,

The interpretation that the Governing Council are placing on this rule, under the 'spirit of the rule' proviso, is that a full member will be an F16 owner (or owner currently in genuine build period) who races his F16 whether it be in open class or F16 only racing (in the case of a not yet built boat we have to rely on the owners word of intention to race).

In practice, we will be relying on National Associations to monitor an individuals right to membership and voting since they will be best placed to know what an individual owner does.

Are commercial builders members??

I hope so. IMO, they are critical to our success, or failure.

The real question is "should commercial builders have a vote", and if yes, how many?

At least one, probably more.

Just incase someone cares. I voted against ballot 2 (about the centreboards) because I don't like clauses a) or c). I agree with the sentiment, disagree with the wording, hence the negative vote. It matters little though, looks like the vote will go through anyway.

I hate being pedantic but you'd better define banana boards and fore and aft movement because all boards will flex under load turning them into a banana shape, and all boards will move fore and aft in their cases, certainly with arrangements like taipans.

I think it may've been better to state what is allowed rather than what is banned...I like the clause in many of the model yacht rules that says either something like "...if it is not specifically allowed, it is banned..." or alternatively, "...if it is not specifically banned, it is allowed...". One sweeping statement like that covers a lot of area, particularly if you apply it to each item of the boat, ie. the former could be good for centreboards (where there are many variations available, only a small portion of which the class wants to allow), while the latter could be applied to hulls (where there isn't much you can do anyway, but ppl can still play with ideas/variations).

Just something to think about.

Whether the sailors like it or not the builders have a very large influence in the class business (personally I'm okay with that). Interestingly enough this is irrespectably of whether they have voting rights or not.

Afterall, class officials are nothing more then well intending sailors holding pieces of paper with words on them. The builders control all the actual hardware and marketshares. Knowing this, does anybody want to pick a fight with the builders ?

Therefor rule number 1 for class officials is to NEVER EVER risk a mutiny among the builders. Even risking it is very damaging to the class as a whole as it directly decreases the status and perception of authority of the class and its leading officials.

Rule number 2 is to learn rule 1 again !

Doing the F16 class business is a whole lot of politics and background lobbying (before moving to holding a public vote).

Personally I feel the builders have an effective vote by supporting a proposed changes from the start or not. When they are not SUFFICIENTLY supportive then the GC must move to not vote on the alteration. This has been my personal experience and for this reason there is no difference whether the builders have an official vote or not. In praxis they always have and it is a massively important one at that.

In the past I always gave the builders 1 vote equal to a normal class member; the is no reason to public favour them over actual sailors. But having said that, I made damn sure I had their full support before I entered a public vote.

Wouter

I voted in favour of ballot 2 but I too am less then convinced with the actuall wording. However I found these objections to be too small to vote against the rule.



This goes directly against the fundamental principle of the F16 class and therefor this syntax can not and should not be applied. The fundamental principle is "total freedom of design and modification under the limit of general quality in racing"

It seems to me that as good as all F16 class members are in favour of modifying and adding the rules, but there is unease over the actual proposed wordings.

It is my believe that relatively small adjustement to the proposed modifications can result in complete support by all involved parties, without altering the intended goals.

I would like to propose to the GC to investigate whether this can be adressed. This is a repeat of an early request of mine that was give in private.

Wouter

On-line voting now closed.

I need to correct some of my statements in my earlier posting.

It has been brought to my attention that some statements of mine were incorrect. I rechecked the disputed points and indeed I was incorrect. I'm refering to the statements :




This part appears to be incorrect.

The F18/F20 class rules only state that the mainsail area shall enclose the mast area. No further definitions are given. Later in the F18 rules it is said :

"The method of calculation of sail area shall be as defined in th 1999 formula 18 measurement form and measurement certificate."

I was assured today that the F18 measurement form does indeed define the WHOLE mast area times 0.5 is to be included in the overall mainsail area.

For me this is enough to accept the fact that I was in error earlier.

Source : ftp://ftp2.f18-international.org/finterna/2003_F18_Class_rules.pdf


2nd error :



The statement is only partically correct. Texel indeed calculates sailarea as indicated by me earlier but SCHRS (ISAF) does not. I check the 2007 version of the SCHRS system today and it clearly defines the mast area, which is to be included in the mainsail area, as :

Area of Mast = (Total Length x Perimeter / 2) m2

Clearly this definition proofs the error in my earlier statement.

source : http://www.schrs.com/index.php?page=measurement


This ends my posts setting the facts straight. We also had an interesting discussion about the rule change today, read my follow on post for more details.

Wouter

A few befriended sailors and F16 sailors discussed the finer points of the rule change in more depth.

The earlier posting correcting some mistake on my side is a direct result of that.

With these corrections 2 of my counterpoints have fallen away. A new appreciation of my stance is therefor in order.

I have/had two remaining counterpoints to the proposed rule change and again I state that I'm in agreement with the intention to change the rule ! I just disagreed with the a detail of the new rule.

In fact my contention focussed entirely on whether to use the full length of the mast or just the 8.100 mtr measured that is the maximal allow luff length a F16 mainsail may reach under full downhaul tension.

The two remaining points are :

-1- The new proposed rule links up several rules that were fully independent before. In the past changing your mast length didn't affect your allowed sail area in any way; with the new rule it does, albeit in small terms. I strongly favour maintaining the original orthogonality (mutual independence) of the class rules unless absolutely necessary. For reasons of clarity, maximum freedom of design, minimizing unintended consequences.

-2- From the start the F16 class was setup to only rule on real issues based on hardnosed science. It is scientifically well understood and without a doubt that a leading edge WITHOUT a restoring curve behind it (= the sail cloth) will NOT produce any benefits (= forward drive). Reasons for this are twofold : first the leading edge (by itself) has a NEGATIVE angle of attack with respect to the apparent wind as such it will produce negative lift which is directly translated into negative drive, meaning drag. Secondly, without the sail cloth behind the leading egde completing the wing curve, the airflow over the leading egde will stall because of a to abrupt change in airpressure. The resulting macro turbulance and its drag addition will totally negate any benefical suction zones. In effect; a mast profile rotated to act as a leading egde to the whole mainsail will produce no benefical drive on the parts that are not followed by the sail itself.


Interestingly enough I feel that both points remain valid and that I've been able to explain them sufficiently in the discussion.

I feel the others found no faults with these points. The discussion then focussed on another consideration in the discussion and that is how sailing organisations like ISAF, builders and sailmakers prefer the sail area to be determined.

It was argued that between these groups a concensus was formed over time that the mast area should be determined by multiplying the overall length by the halve of the circumference. Apparently the important cat classes like F18, Tornado and A-cats have accepted that concensus and as a result it will be in our interest as F16 class to do so too.

I can personally find no fault with that reasoning.

So the question now becomes which of the two conflicting perspectives should be weighted more heavily.

The engineer in me says :"my perspective", the former class official in me says :"their perspective"

....

After taking a little time to contemplate this dillema I feel that I should weight the analysis and the conclusions of the current acting Governing Council more heavily. Afterall they did confer with all named parties (especially the really important ones) and it is they who need to implement the F16 growth and policy over the coming years. It is best to have them make the decision that they feel will allow them to be succesful at this.

Also I now feel that my remaining points are by themselves too weak to continue this discussion. Point 2 is not important when all F16's suffer from the same drawback. That leaves only point 1 against the drawbacks of rowing against the (ISAF, F18, Tornado, A-cat) current. That is not enough in my view.

So I desist my opposition and I must say that I feel that the GC has convinced me of the merits of their proposal (c.q. compromise).

Considering the overall situation, it is the best that can be done.

And that is that.

Wouter

Tornado have a one-design mast now, so mast surface area is not taken into consideration when measuring? With the alu mast there was some limitation on what the crossection of the mast should be, but surface area has not been an issue with regards to total sail area calculations. The T class rules are much too "one design" to allow large differeneces in mast crossections. At least as far as I remember the class rules.