Catsailor.com

Straight question to Macca

Posted By: waynemarlow

Straight question to Macca - 02/14/08 12:48 PM

Macca can I ask you a direct question, its neither slanging nor praising but I feel its a question that the forum users need a straight answer.

Are you professionally paid or associated through professional requirements to a catamaran manufacturer / s, if so would you declare which manufacturer that is.

Your answer may have quite a bearing on your forum messages.
Posted By: waynemarlow

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/14/08 01:31 PM

Sort of a deafening silence on this one Andrew, you definately have been online since I posted this message.

I just feel that if a professional sailor is making statements on an amatuer forum then he /she should declare their paymasters, in the business world this would be considered the right thing to do.
Posted By: fin.

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/14/08 01:51 PM

Indeed! For me, the credibility question is no longer a question.
Posted By: Rolf_Nilsen

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/14/08 01:57 PM

Or he wants to sleep on how to best answer this, as it is night in Oz now.
Posted By: Wouter

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/14/08 02:58 PM

That assumes that Macca (mr Andrew McP) is actually in Australia at this time !

He may be but he also may well not be !

Wouter
Posted By: Rolf_Nilsen

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/14/08 03:01 PM

Right, did not think about that one..

BTW Wouter, your PM box is full.
Posted By: macca

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/14/08 08:38 PM

So everyone on here should declare their commercial interests?
Posted By: fin.

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/14/08 08:54 PM

No. Just you.
Posted By: macca

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/14/08 09:10 PM

So nobody else on here has any commercial interest/potential interest in the class?

I work for several groups involved in sailing. My interest here is more from a personal perspective with a background in the business.

How about we focus on the issues rather than the personal attacks??
Posted By: scooby_simon

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/14/08 09:21 PM

Quote

How about we focus on the issues rather than the personal attacks??


As far as I can understand it, you and Steven want to add weight to the F16, but are not class members.


Most of the rest of us want to leave the class all up weight as it is.

Fair summary?
Posted By: macca

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/14/08 09:27 PM

That and a number of other issues such as material restrictions and general tightening of the rules.

Maybe if the class is so concerned about the discussion they should take the forum to a class members only environment?
Posted By: tshan

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/14/08 09:40 PM

My name is Tom Shannon.

I sail F16s recreationally in the Southeastern US.

I am a member of the US F16 Class Association.

I have no commercial interests in building, equipping or selling anything related to sailing.

I joined a "box rule/formula" class knowing that faster designs could be created (even using antiquated building materials/bypassing exotic materials) that met class rules.

I accepted this risk, in return for a boat that allows me to sail more often (1 up or 2 up). Being light factored into my decision of make/model of boat to purchase.

If someone would like to invest a fortune to beat me around the race course, then so be it. I'd call them an idiot, then buy them a beer and ask "why?".

Anyone else?
Posted By: Rolf_Nilsen

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/14/08 09:59 PM

Guys,

remember that anything said here will reflect back on the class, not just the poster.
Posted By: Smiths_Cat

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/14/08 10:04 PM

Hi,

My name is Klaus. I own a Dart 18 and soon a Javeline 16, hence I am not a F16 class member.

I have no other interests in sailing than having fun.

I can accept, if somebody sails faster than me, for whatever reason.

I can accept, if somebody does not share my opinion.

I like to read/write posts here, because most people are open minded and try to answer questions related to sailing.

I like the F16 concept as it is, because it is a class for sailors and not for builders.

Cheers,

Klaus
Posted By: Tony_F18

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/14/08 10:10 PM

Quote

Hi,

My name is Klaus...
etc etc etc


Is this thread turning into an AA meeting? <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

The only "commercial" relationship that I know of Macca is his sponsorship of Nacra (Right Macca?).
As far as I know this would not conflict with the F16 class in any way as they are totally non-related (F18 vs F16).
Posted By: fin.

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/14/08 11:06 PM

Quote
That and a number of other issues such as material restrictions and general tightening of the rules.

Maybe if the class is so concerned about the discussion they should take the forum to a class members only environment?


I have a much better idea.
Posted By: Wouter

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/15/08 01:35 AM

My name is Wouter Hijink

I have no commericial ties to any boating related aspect, F16 ior otherwise.

I do have a strong personal tie to the F16 class by virtue of being a co-founder of that class and actually owning a F16.

I'm still paying some F16 class bills out of my own pocket, I consider that my class membership fee.

I believe in the open F16 forum were also non-F16 owning members can have their say.

I believe that people making strong claims or using harsh language should be prepared to be replied to in kind.

I also believe that everybody should fully identify themselves when making strong claims or proposing F16 rule changes.

I believe that we should not have ANY rule changes without having a clearly defined and well proven need to do so.

I have a very strong dislike of non-scientific discourse and most severely reject any unproofable "believes".

I believe it is foolish to regulate any millionair from spending his fortune on F16 BLING, such people will always find ways to waste money irrespectibally whether it actually leads to performance gains or not.

I believe the performance of a sailboat is governed by only very few basic parameters. Limiting these is enough to garantee fair racing between boats of different make, irrespectibally of how much money is spend.

I believe that a kilogram of aluminium weights just as much as a kilogram of gold and that economically speaking it is more wise to buy aluminium when presented with such a choice. This is called self regulation and it works !


I also believe that I have a full resume on mr. Andrew McP. (Macca) and some others but that it is more polite to allow these people to disclose their resumes and economical linkages themselves.

Wouter
Posted By: taipanfc

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/15/08 05:32 AM

A lot of believes there Wouter.

But also admitting that you will fight fire with fire, that isn't one way to make the class more attractive. Doesn't really breed for conducive informed discussion as some people may hold back from posting as they may be brought down by more "informed" posters. This place isn't Sailing Anarchy.
Posted By: Gilo

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/15/08 06:41 AM

I wouldn't say F16 and F18 aren't linked at all... Nacra could be interested since AHPC has 'officially' launched a F16 now.

Making the minimum weight higher could allow Nacra to use parts they use on the F18 on the F16. Meaning economy of scale and less risk if their project fails.

I know they would have to come up with new hulls, etc. but the only Infusion type hull Nacra has at the moment is the F18. The F17 hull is still the old shape. Maybe while updating it they will change it into a 16 footer?
On the other hand I don't know how big the (inter) F17 class is. Maybe it's a stupid idea that Nacra would take the F17 out of production.

Anyway, I've been sailing my Blade with my girlfriend now for 1 year on the Northsea and I'm pretty convinced the platform is as solid as any other out there.

Regards,
Gill
Posted By: waynemarlow

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/15/08 09:14 AM

Macca it is not a personal attack, I suspect that you have been tasked with assesing F16 as a possible path and one of the criteria is the rules need to be tightened and the weights need to be more realistic for volume production by your employer.

Be honest, you have used lots of I can say anything because it an Internet Forum without recourse so in return I will ask a direct question, are you presently employed by Nacra.
Posted By: macca

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/15/08 10:31 AM

This week I am not employed by anyone.

As I have stated before, my interest in the F16 is more from a personal point of view then any professional associations I may have.
Posted By: waynemarlow

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/15/08 11:01 AM

Sorry the "this week" is a politician speaking and only part of the answer, as you well know.
Posted By: macca

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/15/08 11:10 AM

Well Wayne as recent experience has shown comments made on here seem to be taken out of context and twisted and turned so I am reluctant to divulge my complete personal situation here.
Posted By: waynemarlow

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/15/08 11:42 AM

Thats fine by me but on the other hand you are a professional sailor and from your demeanor in the thread, you had a hidden agenda. I still think there is more to your thinking than what you are admitting.

Now if you had said I've been tasked by Nacra to look at the F16 market we would have welcomed you and given you as much information you ever need, after all for the major manufacturers to be intersted in us is a real breakthrough.

To try and manipulate a market by imposing yours or your employers views by the one and only communications ( forum )form we as F16 members have is a different matter. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: macca

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/15/08 11:45 AM

I think you should go back to the thread in question and read it from the start. Then come back and talk to me.
Posted By: Glenn_Brown

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/17/08 05:27 AM

My name is Glenn Brown.

I have no financial ties to any sailing equipment manufacturer. I am a financial member of no sailing organization other than ISAF directly.

I had been dreaming of a new F16 in my future, as the sheeting forces on my Tornado are excessive, and it's a bear to trailer and wheel around the beach, I've never been in great shape, and I am getting older.

I don't currently own an F16. I am not a member of the F16 class.

I believe it is disgraceful to respond to a reasonable suggestion to better the class with personal attacks against the character of the proponent, while claiming the forum should be reserved for scientific discourse.

I believe that the F16 class is "Crossing the Chasm" from a startup class to an established class, and that the leaders that serve the class best in the startup phase are not usually the best for growth. (Geoffrey Moore, Crossing the Chasm)

I believe that the F16 class has found a unique niche, and has the possibility to grow into a major class.

I believe the F104 is in the same niche.

I believe that at most one will become a major class.

I believe time has shown again and again that technology does not win. Technology is just an opportunity to for marketing (Seth Goglin, talking at Google http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6909078385965257294 ) Good marketing wins.

I believe the F16 class should be marketing itself to major manufacturers, because they aren't going to build both F16's and F104's, and the one they do build has won the marketing game. The other will wither and die.

I believe the F16 class should be actively pursuing major manufacturers, and be open to addressing any reservations they may have about the class, such as reasonably achievable weight, or ISAF status.

2c,
--Glenn
Posted By: ratherbsailing

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/17/08 05:31 AM

well said
Posted By: Stewart

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/17/08 01:42 PM

caveat.. Im an early F16 supporter and the one who in the early days argued for lighter boats...

Yes we know the uniqueness of the F16 it was all part of the first discussions..

The other option you "missed" is for the sailors to market to sailors.. This is btw how the class started..

I would also suggest with a push we could qualify as a "National" class at least in Australia.. I suggest if the titles were held in an accessible area we could drag boats from 4 or 5 states (Possibly get boats from WA, SA, Qld, NSW, Vic)..This would exceed the 3 states required for "National Class" status.. Just need the Au class structure to be finalised and we could walk into that YA and get the status..

Im also not sure about ISAF "International" status.. I know we must be close to achieving the base level of continental fleets to qualify, not sure about required numbers per continent.. However ISAF "International Class" status is a double edged sword.. So I would look long and hard before jumping on that wagon..
Posted By: Tornado_ALIVE

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/18/08 07:11 AM

Quote
Thats fine by me but on the other hand you are a professional sailor and from your demeanor in the thread, you had a hidden agenda. I still think there is more to your thinking than what you are admitting.


Macca's hidden agenda would be simular to mine. Keen to have a boat to race one up, race with his girlfriend when she is available and teach his kid (and for me, future children) how to sail in the future.

At the moment, I see a class where it's CURRENT manufactures can not meet min weight. Would it not be smarter if the min weight was even 115kg. I mean next to no boats re coming in at 107. Brand new Blades are hitting the water at 112 to 113. Keep the boats as they are if you like and add a few kg of lead to equalise each boat to 115 kg. Hell mose of you are probably racing over 115kg which means the difference to you would be zero.

If the class is not even serious or the slightest bit profesional about their class rules, I see exploitation, sky rocketing prices and or rule changes in the future if the class even begins to reach a level which will capture the interest of serious racers.

I like the boat, want to become part of the class, but will not invest money or time into it when all I can see for the class is instability as it grows or remaining the internets bigest class with few boats on the water.

Good luck with your class. I will not be joining you in the near future. May play with the Taipan 4.9 class instead, where I can be guarenteed a profesional run class with real fleet numbers (in AUS atleast) and competitive racing.

Sorry for my harsh words, but hopefully it may be constructive for some without blinkers on. Shame, kind of liked the look of Garry's Blade.
Posted By: Rolf_Nilsen

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/18/08 07:21 AM

And it goes on and on.. No matter how often you knock those same arguments over, the muppets pop up again with the same drivel. Everybody-2, please read the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt and remember.. Dont feed the trolls.
Posted By: macca

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/18/08 07:29 AM

Ahh, the old I don't like your point of view so you must be evil routine....

Steve comes in here with a clear, well thought response that is not attacking anyone and you respond with that...

Who is the "troll" here then?
Posted By: ncik

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/18/08 07:35 AM

Have any manufacturers actually contacted the F16 Governing Council through appropriate channels to discuss this?

(where "this" = the apparent weight issue)
Posted By: Tornado_ALIVE

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/18/08 08:08 AM

Quote
the muppets pop up again with the same drivel.


Sorry, I have been away for a bit (Still away but between regattas) and am currently catching up with what's happening on catsailor.

Please Rolf, let me know which part is "drivel"
Posted By: Rolf_Nilsen

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/18/08 08:23 AM

I'll respond to that Stephen, but I have written macca off completely as a very cunning and slick first rate troll.

The topics you raised just now have been discussed at length without coming anywhere for the last week. It has been very frustrating to see these arguments be raised, refuted and then raised again, over and over. It is pretty insulting to call us non-professional and to say what you say without having a stake in the class. The class at large is happy with the weight and dont see any reason to raise it. If you or anybody else want it raised, you need to become a class member and submit a proposal for a change in the class rules. If a builder wants, it, he can do the same, no problem. This has been chanted at macca continuously for the last week, and now you come back and start it all over again. Having an argument is OK, but when it clearly is not going anywhere, continuing like you do now is nothing else than trying to spread fud, which is very negative for the class. If you dont want to get into the class, fine, but it is pretty impolite to come here saying what you just did.

Now I have repeated this for the n'th time, and I am done.
Posted By: Tornado_ALIVE

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/18/08 09:20 AM

Apologies Rolf, As you know I have not been here for more than a week and am reading posts that may be quiet old to most now.

However I stick to my guns in saying I can not invest in a class with rules so loose and out of touch. F16 members sugest we by a boat then propose an amendement to the rules.... Dose that realy sound like a smart option. I am over this too as I do not see a lot of sence or knowledge coming from many supporting the F16 class here. Therefore I will have a chat to Phil when I get back and may have a chat to Marcus also.

If you guy are happy to stay a very small class, then you are welcolme to it and I am sure I am welcome not to be a part of it. I really feel for the manufactures though who are being hurt by the class' stuborn views. They are in the business of selling numbers, not producing and small class to suite only a monority of sailors. The F16 concept has so much potential. It may be a different class / formula that may benifit from such a concept in (1 man or 2 man spin cat with realist weight.) the future.

Enjoy
Stephen
Posted By: macca

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/18/08 09:52 AM

Quote
I'll respond to that Stephen, but I have written macca off completely as a very cunning and slick first rate troll.


Now thats not nice Rolf, (unless its a compliment <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> and a troll in Norwegian means: really nice person)
Posted By: Wouter

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/18/08 11:54 AM

Stephen,

For example Matt McDonald is on record in the other thread that his new boats in full 2-up attire and without any upgrades like a carbon mast are coming in at 110 kg. That will make them underweight when fitted with a carbon mast alone, a claim that is reflected in the carbon masted VWM Blade coming in underweight at the GC.

Why do you ignore that ?

Also we are all refering really enthousiasticly to the GC CHECKED weight data when we must also underscore that ALL boats that had previously been measured by the same measurer under controlled conditions in a shed at the beginning of the season (=dry boats) were then found to be about 2-2.5 kg lighter. The data gethering at the GC was a control measurement and not an official measuring of the boats. Sand and water clinging to the boats does make them heavier.

So I would move to view the claim that :"... Brand new Blades are hitting the water at 112 to 113 kg ..." with some caution.

There is in fact more evidence for the claim that they (with alu masts) are actually hitting the water for the first time at 110 kg. Of course other boats like converted Taipans come in lighter as shown using the 2001 Taipan Nationals data. The situation is in fact alot more nuanced then you make it out to be.

With respect to professionality, it is actually you and some others who are not professional here as you have been referred to official channels and procedures to propose and advance a rule change but refuse to take it. If you are not a F16 class member then just find a F16 member (like Marcus ?) who will effect the proposal for you. It is not like teh F18 class or the Tornado class is any different in this respect or can any non-member propose rule changes there ? So why are we held to a higher standard then the others ?

If this F16 class is not for you then we are all okay with that and wish you the best of enjoyment in another class of your choice.

Let agree to disagree.

Wouter
Posted By: Stewart

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/18/08 12:19 PM

Mine was unofficially weighed in underweight.. by a few kgs..
Posted By: phill

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/18/08 01:31 PM

Steve,
I hope the regatta is going well for you. It would be interesting to hear how its going.

I just want to clarify something on the issue of weight of boats:


When the Viper came out in Zandvoort it weighed 137kg.

Following this a statement was made by AHPC identifying how 12kg could be removed from that weight
to make it 125kg. I think this has alrady been posted somewhere on this forum. Whether this weight has been achieved or not we won't know until one is weighed.

Similarly the boat Formula Catamarans took to Zandvoort was heavier than the class min.at 111kg
It was one of the first boats out of the mould and following detailed analysis of the weights
it was obvious just as with the Viper there was potential weight saving.

I've just taken delivery of a Blade platform and boards and have been comparing weights with the one that went to Zandvoort and I have already measured a saving of 5kg. This is not with bathroom scales but calibrated professional digital scales.

There is no increase in cost for this saving and given I can see probably 2 or 3 kg more that could
be saved I'm expecting the boat to come in on or below min weight.


Now as you would know Marcus put up a post indicating he did not think he could get to min weight.
However I've been studying the weight aspect of the design from the beginning and together and I think
we should have it licked.

This weight reduction trend is quite normal as the first boats are freqyuently a bit heavier as the build
process is bedded in.

When you get back I'd be happy to kick around the different philosophies over a beer.

Regarding your needs- if the Taipan best suits your needs then I wish you well and will even
keep an eye out. In fact I've almost got one finished that I stopped to do the Blade project and you
can have that just for material cost.

Regards,
Phill
Posted By: Tornado_ALIVE

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/18/08 08:45 PM

Good news Phil, I will keep an eye on how all this progresses. Will have to sell the F18 before moving on which is not proving easy at the moment.

As for sail Auckland, we are not having a good regatta. The crew (boat owner) is suffering from a twisted pelvis and is reciving physio every second day. He is having a lot of trouble getting in and out on trap, therfore I am trapping downwind whilst working the main upwind. His mainsheet system is tappered and is not holding at all in the ratchet so is very hard work. We are getting smashed on the upwind because I can not get the boat into the groove by myself. He has 4 days to recover enough for the Worlds or it will be more of the same.

Anyway, beats being at work or watching the Worlds from the shore.

Will talk when I get back.
Posted By: Steve_Kwiksilver

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/18/08 10:16 PM

I`ve been away from this forum for a long time, and chose an interesting time to catch up on some reading.
Just another perspective to look at things from : (BTW I am not a class member, or am I ? I sail a Mosquito with spi.. does that still qualify as an F16 ?)
When I approached Wouter as the (then) class chairman I was interested in having the Mosquito with spi accepted as an F16, after looking at our proposal he agreed, as it could do no harm. The boat`s ISAF rating works out at 1.13, so it`s around 10% slower (on paper) than a real F16 or F18. In real terms we can sometimes surprise the Hobie Tigers given the right conditions (10-15knots, and over 25knots) The reason for us wanting the Mozzie included was to benefit both parties : The F16 class could gain numbers at that early stage and have representation in Deepest Darkest Africa, while the Mosquito class had no place for spinnakers in it`s one-design rules, so we would then have a class to sail under. We attempted to get the Hobie 16`s to join us with spinnakers as we don`t have fancy boats in Africa, our ratings are similar with spinnakers, but that did not happen as Hobie worldwide decided they didn`t want to play with other kids that didn`t look like them. The Australian Mozzies quickly caught up in terms of numbers using spinnakers, mainly due to the inclusion of the boat as an F16, and Tim Sheppard`s efforts. As a result there are around 40 spinnaker-equipped Mosquito`s that regard the F16 class as a place where they belong, even if they are rated slower. However, where I sail you would not be too happy on a fully-optimised F16 most of the time, often we would prefer less sail area on the humble little Mozzie, as our sailing season corresponds with a windsurfing season in which you get the most use out of a 4sqm sail.
It would not bother me in the least if the F16 class decided that the Mozzie with spi no longer fitted their class rules and excluded us, as in S. Africa we have adopted the spi as standard and voted it into our class rules, which has effectively divided us from our Auzzie counterparts. It may affect them negatively as they will have no class to sail in.
What I`m getting at is that raising the min. weight would require the Mozzie sailors to carry more lead than that which is allowed in the class rules, effectively excluding the Mozzies from the F16 class. I do realise that attracting the big manufacturers would be more beneficial to the class than retaining a small number of boats that are not ideal as F16 boats, so if that happened I wouldn`t lose any sleep over it.
My real point is that when first hearing of the F16 concept it sounded brilliant - allowing different design boats with similar performance to race on a level-rating, first-in wins, basis. To me it would not really matter if the various designs varied in their ISAF ratings by one or two points, as that is too small a difference to count. I realise that others would prefer a more tightly controlled class with the boats being almost identical, so that the OD philosophy prevails. The sad thing about this is that there is no room for innovation in the design of the boats, the kind of innovation that sparked the creation of 'Altered'. What we have ended up with is a class of boats that almost are identical in design, as they are all being designed to the maximum limits of the box-rule. Of course it may be difficult to get these boats in at min. weight for some mass-production manufacturers, but it is still possible for the smaller builders with high quality control systems in place, such as VWM and Stealth Catamarans. It is also possible for a home-builder or anyone else to build a boat that conforms to the F16 rules, but may be smaller in some dimensions than the maximum allowed, for whatever reason the designer / builder chooses, and therefore is easy to be below the current min. weight. Raising the min. weight just excludes these possibilities.
I believe the original concept of the class should be kept in mind. It allowed existing boat designs to be included such as the Taipan, Mosquito, Stealth and even the Spitfire (which is seriously overweight and has a slightly bigger sail area than allowed under F16, however it`s ISAF rating is 1.04, making it very similar in performance.)
I can well understand Macca and Stephen Medwell`s point of view, however i can also understand those in defense of the current class rules remaining unaltered. Perhaps it would be wise to consider the Taipans, Stealths and Mosquitos that could form a fairly large percentage of the class worldwide, and can all be built under min. weight (or in the case of the Taipan, could have been until recently, and are only having issues regarding weight as a result of a change in builder).
Just my opinion on the matter, sorry it took so long.
The attached image is of the wind stats from a few days ago - definitely not F16 weather.. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Attached picture 133975-WEENDIE3.jpg
Posted By: scooby_simon

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/18/08 10:22 PM

Stephen,

I have not weighed my boat on "proper" scales. Hoever a quick trip onto a set of bathroom scales indicate that it will be about on Min weight for a single handed boat.
Posted By: ncik

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/19/08 12:25 AM

So no actual manufacturer has officially contacted the Governing Council about the apparent weight issue, and there is no apparent weight issue.

This has been a lot of arguing over nothing.
Posted By: macca

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/19/08 12:36 AM

No major manufacturer (other than AHPC who have asked for the increase) is interested in F16 at the moment because under the current rules it is not a viable option for volume manufacturing.

The whole point of my suggestion was to make the class interesting to those builders so that they had a chance to build boats at a good price and hence expand the class greatly.
Posted By: ncik

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/19/08 12:43 AM

If a manufacturer is actually interested in producing the F16, but would like to discuss an amendment to the rules, this is the worst way to go about it. All this discussion is doing is creating instability, which would not be in the interests of any manufacturer commencing F16 production.

Get in contact with the Governing Council. If you are indeed a manufacturers representative, you've done a crap job of helping that manufacturer get into the class with any possibility of amendments. I don't consider an internet forum a very professional avenue for a manufacturer or its representatives to bring this up with the council.
Posted By: macca

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/19/08 12:46 AM

FOR THE LAST TIME: I AM NOT REPRESENTING A MANUFACTURER IN HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My interest in F16 is purely from a personal point of view.
Posted By: Wouter

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/19/08 08:26 AM

Stephen,

Maybe this can help.

If you have a spare autoratchet, then place it to the rear of the upper mainsheet block and have the line wrap around that instead of around the upper block. You will leave one sheave unused on the upper block but it really increases your holding power ALOT. It has to be an autoratchet as it has the disengage for quick sheeting out. The ratchet block can be put on the boom using something like an eyestrap as one block doesn't put too much tension on the light booms we are all using now.

It may not be a perfect setup when the mainsheet setup is twisted but when faced with bad chooses you best go with the least bad.

Good luck !

Wouter
Posted By: macca

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/19/08 08:32 AM

Quote

Macca,

Maybe this can help.

If you have a spare autoratchet, then place it to the rear of the upper mainsheet block and have the line wrap around that instead of around the upper block. You will leave one sheave unused on the upper block but it really increases your holding power ALOT. It has to be an autoratchet as it has the disengage for quick sheeting out. The ratchet block can be put on the boom using something like an eyestrap as one block doesn't put too much tension on the light booms we are all using now.

It may not be a perfect setup when the mainsheet setup is twisted but when faced with bad chooses you best go with the least bad.

Good luck !

Wouter


STEVE is the one with the mainsheet problem, not me. I know I am in your thoughts a lot these days so I understand <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

But the boat Steve is using has the NACRA Infusion system, so its a 10:1 with a tapered Maffioli sheet. The tapering greatly reduces the drag/grip in the system and would make it pretty hard to hang onto with one hand (I know cause I sailed that boat in the Lock Ness Monster Race last August)

I would suggest running a non tapered sheet to improve the grip in the system, or shortening the tapered section so that there is more of the fat sheet in the blocks at full tension.
Posted By: Wouter

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/19/08 08:32 AM


Steve,

Personally I feel more loyalty towards guys that were here and supportive during the first hours then any Big Boy that sat on the fence till it was safe and demands all kinds of adjustments before even considering to join up.

Steve, I think it would be a great miss to have you guys exclude if it ever comes to that. Including the SA Mozzie was one of the very best things we ever did !

Thank you for all your support in the past.

Wouter
Posted By: Steve_Kwiksilver

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/19/08 08:41 PM

I`m getting confused about the number of Steves posting in this thread. I`m the one who`s happy with his mainsheet.
Thanks for the positive comments, Wouter. When we first wanted the Mozzie included in the F16 class it was with a long-term goal of putting a slightly bigger rig on it, which has been tried in Australia, I believe not very successfully, which is partly why the Taipan was created in the first place. We are still looking at it very tentatively, I say this because it has been blowing over 34knots for a week now, and I would prefer a F18 platform with a Mozzie rig on it right now, over a Mozzie with a Taipan rig ! I know this is completely off-topic, but after trying to read the many posts in all the different threads that actually come down to one subject, I`m a bit lost as to what the topic is.
All I know is that if the wind holds up like this for another month, the Hobie Tigers are going to have a very eventful worlds..
My point on the Mozzie being excluded was to illustrate that having a vote to raise the min. weight might not be beneficial to all the class members, Scooby Simon says his boat is on min. weight, would he want to add lead because the major manufacturers can`t do what John Pierce and Matt McDonald can ? I think that would be against the spirit of the class and it`s rules, as I understand them.
If you REALLY want the class to grow, would it not be better to canvas the Taipan class in Australia and add some 200 boats to the class, if there is interest. I think they will soon realise the groundswell that the F16 class is now acchieving and would be foolish not to become part of it, especially since they can just remove the spinnaker and it`s gear to sail in Taipan OD events, the best of both worlds. Man, I wish I lived in Australia !
And now for completely off-topic : We had a 17km (approx. 10 miles) downwind race recently open to all craft, it was blowing over 30knots at the start, and reached a measured 44knots at the first turnpoint. Kiters dominated, some windsurfers survived, and there were 3 Hobie 16`s sailing. Miraculously all 3 finished the race, but the first Hobie 16 over the finish line had no mast up : They attached a 16sm kitesurfing kite to the front beam, one guy steered and the other flew the kite. They beat the other 2 H16`s by a huge margin. I wonder if one day soon we won`t be discussing carbon mast vs alu mast, instead we might be arguing the virtues of mast vs no mast....Then again, maybe someone here will tell me to go fly a kite ... <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Rolf_Nilsen

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/19/08 08:46 PM

Go fly a kite upwind <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
I think kites are good downwind, but they still have to improve upwind. LEIs are a good try, as can RAM kites, but I still think a decent catamaran rig will beat them. Interesting times though.
Posted By: Tony_F18

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/19/08 08:50 PM

Steve:
Can you tell me something about the condition at Langebaan?
(I'm heading there next week for the Tiger Worlds).

What is the water temperature like?
I hear its a bit chilly, and what is the shark situation there? (So i know not to capsize! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />).
Thx.
Posted By: Wouter

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/20/08 07:37 AM



Best of luck at the Worlds, Tony !

Wouter
Posted By: Steve_Kwiksilver

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/20/08 08:07 AM

Hi Tony,
Water temp in Langebaan is on the other side of warm my guess is around 12-15degC.I`d recommend a full-length wetsuit. The Lagoon is warmer but I think you`ll be sailing more in the Bay north of the island (Saldanha Bay) as the lagoon shallows considerably from the island going south. Air temps should be 22-30degC, sometimes up to 34. Wind chill can be a factor if a cold front is pushing through.
I windsurf there more than catsailing, and haven`t seen a shark yet. Apparently the fishermen catch small ones that probably come into the shallows to find food, or for safety from bigger ones. Having said that I make sure I waterstart as quickly as possible when falling in, I share your concern about them ! There is a fish canning factory at the town of Saldanha, if there are any sharks they would probably hang around there waiting for scraps. We normally sail our nationals there, and have not seen a shark yet, or lost any competitors <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> (and I have been crowned the capsize king after 4 ditches in one downwind leg of a race <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />)
We have seen a whale in the lagoon, and had to tack to avoid getting too close, but it`s not the time of year you are likely to see any.
Wind should be good, if not a little too good based on what we have had lately. Our REALLY windy season is normally from November to mid-Feb, then starts tapering off into March, but it started late this year, and seems to be hanging around.
Have a look at Google Earth, search Langebaan Lagoon / Saldanha Bay. There is a "join" line in the map where the satellite images overlapped. The sailing area is likely to be just about where the darker image meets the lighter image, just north of the small island in the lagoon mouth. Launch beach is to the right of the island, in a narrow channel.
Hope this helps, enjoy your regatta. I might come up there for a day or two to watch and windsurf, what`s your sail number ?

Attached picture 134225-206_WEST_COAST_r_copy[3].jpg
Posted By: Stewart

Re: Straight question to Macca - 02/21/08 07:55 AM

In my opinion.. The mozzie was accepted as a F16 foundation boat and unless the mozzies ask to be excluded I cant see a good reason to change their status..
© 2024 Catsailor.com Forums