F16 wings

How would a set of carbon fibre wings go on a F16 would it have the volume in the bows to support the extra leverage or would it pitchpole? I currently have a I17 and it is supposed to have heaps of volume in the bows so I have got Nacra to make a set of wings for it, will the weight of the wings slow it down or will the extra leverage be offset this, I sail 1 up just as the F16 can be, has any one tried wings on a F16? I would love to hear from them, I guess the 2 boats are fairly simular regarding adding wings r/e performance, this is something I am doing regardless as i am entering a charity fundraiser which requires a 6 day coast sail and the wings as a seat will be awsome i can remove them later if they are just a hinderence thanks...

That depends on which F16 you are going to use, as they have different hull shapes and different bow shape, ie. some have more volume up front than others.

Are you using the F17? The F17 is of course 1 foot longer so that adds more buoyancy up front too, that will help, you might want to talk to the Hobie 18 guys as that's the boat I've seen most with the wings, that and the Hobie 17's. I've never seen any on a F16.

I had wings on my FXone. Not that great, the little bit of leverage wasn't worth the extra weight.

Wings would be part of the overall beam measurement - which is limited to 2.5m (one side could fold up while the other deploys). Not sure it would be worth it on a F16 - it seems as though the rules are biased against wings, as they are not part of the overall weight calculation either (if not permanently fixed).

a folding wing setup in carbon would give a considerable advantage over boats without wings.

total weight of each wing (with effective beam increase of 1.5m) would only be 2.5kg including mountings..

so you would get a massive righting moment gain for very little weight cost. Its another F16 rule that I struggle to see the benefit to the class.

Andrew, F16 is a semi-development class. Wings can be retro-fitted (at a cost and adjustment to beam width) and should a carbon, folding wing setup be trialled and found to be leap forward in performance, it would then be up to each owner to decide whether they should go that route........
I (and other F16 owners) fail to see the struggle in that?

it is actually a very good rule, the measure overall width. It is done in many other classes as well. It is a up to the designer to decide to make the cross beams wider or to add wings.
I don't like the wings, because you could fall onto it during a capsize, but that's just my personal opinion.

By the way with a F16, you have alread a width to length ratio of 1:2, as a Tornado.

Cheers,

Klaus

Macca your brain isnt working..
1.2.2 The maximum overall beam measured on the platform is 2.5 m (= 8.2 ft).

1.2.3 Wings may be carried as long as the equivalent overall beam, when measured over the platform, and one fully extended wing is 2.5 m or less.

So no increase in overall width can happen..

Andrew, As john says; the boat must still be 8 foot 2 wide so with wings you will get LESS RM.

Why?

Well; with wings where is the mast in terms of distance from the pivot point(leeward hull) ?

without wings; the mast is 1/2 boat width from the pivor point.
With wings the mast is less than 1/2 of the effective boat width as the wing IS part of beam.

So the mass of the mast is closer to the pivot point and contributes less to the RM.

Adding wings on a fixed beam platform REDUCES RM.

Ruls are ruls, but the tornadoes changed their ruls and it was a huge advantage to the class, i cant see how a set of wings would do any harm to the class, i dont think the hobie fx wings were all that advanced compared to what we can make nowdays, so i guess weight wouldnt be an issue, they would have to be easily removed to trailer or fold up, that also would not be hard to make, the leeward would kik up so no drag when the windward hull comes up, i can only see pluses, oh well im gunna try them, but trapping out on them with spinaker up is gunna take some gonads..Great response thanks guys, pics will come but have to wait for Nacra!

I believe Andrew understands that the class ruls have a width limit and the wings will exceed that, perhaps you could strap some carbon stilts to your feet! Keeping within the ruls that is...you could have stilt holders in the side of your hull with quick release breakaway straps if you go for a swim..Andrew is saying by not allowing wings is not benefiting the class, or any of the other cat classes, yet our friends sailing monohulls are embrasing the use of light carbon wings to enhance their speed..just my thoughts...

Devon, the class rules DO allow wings - they must still fit within the boxrule though. So you arrange the wings so that one is always 'kicked up' and you get a slightly better righting moment than a full width F16 without wings. However you're penalised in that they are not part of the platform weight so your boat will always be over and you have the added complexity of the arrangement and the chance of something going wrong.
It may well be that a winged F16 could be faster but that is the beauty of the class - someone has to try it first before others will follow!

Im guessing english is not your first language..

1.2.3 Wings may be carried as long as the equivalent overall beam, when measured over the platform, and one fully extended wing is 2.5 m or less.

I can post a translation in any language which is your first language.. Wings are allowed. Cheating is not..

Adding extra righting moment would be a trade off, the boards we use are getting smaller and smaller ( less drag ) so adding righting moment will eventually simply over power the lift generated from the boards, increase the board size and you increase the drag causing the boat to go slower.

With my weight out on the trapeze and the spinny pulled in tight on a broad reach you can really feel the boat going sideways, enough that we now take the spinny down as its faster to the next mark without it. With wings that can only be exaggerated further.

From a practical perspective the only guy who fitted wings at my club to a FX1 took them off after only a day or two as he felt the boat was slower around the course plus the leeward wing kept hitting the tops of the waves slowing dramatically the boat. What he did say is they make a great armchair and you just don't need the trapeze.

My understanding of the "wings" rule is that it allows sailors who for example sail a narrow platform boat (think Mosquito, beam 2.2m) to add wings to the max of 300mm each side, giving equal RM to a fully-optimised boat. From what I understand they don`t have to be folding, if they`re fixed, the platform is still only measured with one rack.
The only advantage I can think of with this setup is that such a boat will fly a hull in less wind than a wider platform, while still having the max. RM of a full F16 design. So light wind performance might be slightly better (you can fly a hull earlier), but with the weight of the racks, do you really gain anything ? Seems self-correcting, which I`ve found most of the well-considered rules to be.

My bad... the wing rule serves no purpose, not sure why its even in there really.

However, I do like the "F16 is a semi-development class" part. If the class is open to development why are curved boards banned? it seems that there is a risk of falling behind the development curve...

was there a reason as to the banning of curved boards? almost anything else goes so why not the bent boards?

The class rules have been carefully structured to permit limited development and experimentation.
Lifting foils, curved boards, solid sails etc are quantum changes that may well be permitted in time (if members vote for them) but for the moment there are plenty of areas to explore that are within the rules.

Well it seems that the development is very limited in this case... so much for the open mindedness

That may be your funniest post ever.

So, Macca, in some posts you argue that the F16 rules are too open; in others you argue that they are not open enough?

Which is it?

I gotta agree with you macca on that point, why cant the other sailers allow you to use curved boards and in return you give up some yardstick, 1 or 2 points whatever, at least this gives the class the chance to develop further and explore other possible benefits for the future and will not encourage newer more modern classes as you will already be cutting edge, i recently raced a nacra 16square, he still had the pinhead but carried a mid pole spinaker, all i could say was WOW! he dropped 3 points off his yardstick and it went downwind real fast, i would not call that cheating, but ruls being ruls he was not allowed to use it other than club racing. anyhow i think you all are right about the wings and i thank you for the input, they will definately be detachable sorry about the engrish

Wings are best for the narrower Taipan 4.9s which were grandfathered in. These platforms are 2340mm wide, so can 16cm wings can be added to each side to add righting movement.

And if my intuitive maths are correct, there would be more righting movement on a Taipan with wings compared to a standard 2.5m Viper due to the Mast step being relatively closer to the leeward hull.

And in relation to the wing rule, is there anything to stop you in the rules having these wings extend aft of the hull (skiff style)?

No

"No" to which part?

Wings can extend behind the hull - nothing in the rules says otherwise

this would work almost..
Grandfathered boats need conform to the "grandfathered class rules".. The question would then be .. Can a Tiapan 4.9 (with wings) sail in a official T 4.9 regatta as a T4.9? If not then the boat is not grandfathered and must conform to all F16 rules... Quite simple really..

this would work in an open fleet. In an official F16 all boats start on same line first finish across wins. In an open fleet one can use yardsticks..

What you seem to be advocating is a open box rule class.. Probably bounded by length, width, max sail area and maybe weight. These were the first "International" class rules. A, B, C and D. These worked for a while and may again....

But it would upset Macca significantly and we cant have that..

True, but i could make a Viper narrower, put wings on and still meet the F16 class rules, have greater leverage and have the wings extended out the back of the boat to help "launch it" downwind.

Or, simply allow the curved boards and then you don't have ugly wings hanging off the back like an afterthought..

Sure I have the position that the class rules are too open, and encourage cheque book racing. Thats why I don't understand why the class won't allow curved boards?

Every time I bring up the rules issue I get told that you all love to freedom to build your F16 how you want, yet when I point out that there is an area of development you are restricting... the excuse is that it would be a quantum change in the boat! Well hang on a second: The A class' have yet to prove that curved boards are a quantum change so why not allow the development within the freedoms of the F16 class?

Let the A Class guys spend the money on R+D !

You get LESS RM as the mast is closer to the Pivot point; the leeward hull is the pivot point. by moving the mast towards it you are reducing the RM from the mast (and the hull).

Cats pivot on the leeward hull. To get max RM you want as much of the mass on on the windward hull (or close to it, or further away from the leeward hull).




RM can be broken down into these components (no wings)

1, Boat: 1/2 beam x mass (assuming boat is symmetrical)
2, Crew component = (beam +0.93 (average COG of a person)) x 75kg (average person weight) x no of crew on the trap + beam x 75kg x no of crew NOT trapping

Now add wings (we will calc the wing RM as a step)

1, Boat RM stays the same (but remember that because the beam is MUCH less RM drops)
2, "empty wing" rm = beam + 1/2 width of wing x mass of wing.
2, Crew component = (beam + wing beam + 0.93 (average COG of a person)) x 75kg (average person weight) x no of crew on the trap + (beam + wing beam) x 75kg x no of crew NOT trapping

Steve is correct here guys.

He's got the correct intepretation of the class rules and indeed most rules are written to be self-correcting.

Wouter

Scooby_Simon, been a while since high school physics so please excuse the cloudy brain whilst i remember, but are you considering the calc as a 2nd class or 3rd class lever? If 2nd class, then you are correct, but I always thought as 3rd class. The crew is the lead weight lump at the end of the wing/lever pushing down. The force from the sails/wind/mast is on the middle of the lever pushing up. If you can move this force point closer to the point, the more effective the force pushing down.

Am i missing something?

You been on the Moth a bit too much Taipanfc.... :-P

Decreasing beam from hull to hull despite the addition of wings will reduce your RM significantly. The pivot point for a cat is over the centerline of the leeward hull. By adding wings you through more beam (and weight) leeward of the pivot point. You are also brining the weight of the windward hull closer to the pivot point. Even reducing the beam by a little bit makes a big difference.

So, a Taipan 4.9 would be better investing thier money into a set of wider beams, tramp and stays, forgetting about wings.

If the class rules alowed a max beam and then wings, by all means go for it. If it is just max beam, increase the beam of the hulls.

Jump back on a cat mate, you know you want too :-) Sorry, could not resist.

That's the Foiling Cat I've been looking for!

Nice photoshop, now, can someone make it happen for real?

TA, happy to be proved wrong. But logic is that the beam width is made to be 2.5m for a Taipan with the addition of wings. So distance from pivot point is same for Taipan and Viper. But mast for Taipan is 1.17m v 1.25m on Viper closer to pivot. So effect is similar to a wheelbarrow but efforts are reversed. You can move more weight on a wheelbarrow the closer it is to the pivot point, that is the axle. You certainly moved a lot of dirt over the weekend so should have lots of practical experience .

Is this logic right?

I'm sorry Stephen, you post contains so many errors that I don't even know where to begin. In short, if a student would submit something like that as his final report then he would have failed the course basic mechanics.

Wouter

The weight of the luff wing will also go a long way in correcting for the less then optimal position of the mast. Yes, it weights less but its leverage is also significantly more. The intent of the rules is to allows freedom of design without leading to an unfair advantage either way.

I think this result has been pretty well achieved in this case without the use of complicated rules.

Wouter

Sorry Wouter, I sail rather than read about it. Can you fix it for me.

By the way, if I was writing a report it would be nowhere near as crude as this.

All forces balance on the leeward hull. All mass is at a distance from the pivot (leeward hull).

If you JUST have a boat; you can assume the mass (in pivot terms is spread accross the boat. The windward hull is "beam" away from the pivot; the boat is symetric and so 1/2 mass of the boat is acting at the beam. If the boat-beam is reduced (because you have wings to make it back up to the same overall beam), you have less RM from the boat (1/2 mass * beam(remember smaller + (some RM from the wing). Crew provides the same mount of RM as they are the same distance from the pivot.

IF you have wings on the boat, the mast is not in the middle of the boat (+wings) and so the mass of the mast provies less RM. Also; as the boat heels; the mast moves to the otjer side of the pivot more quickly and so reduced RM again.

Heeling moment (from the sails) is balanced at the leeward hull. The heeling moment we are "balancing" is at 90 degrees to the RM and we balance at the leeward hull.

And I think I have gained a few inches length in my arms. Should help with the spinnaker sets.



Not quite as the cat will not pivot on the end of its wing (hope not anyway) but the centre of the hull. Beam alone does not give you RM, weight will also contribute and the further you move it away from the pivot point (hulls and rig) the more RM you achieve.



Do you want to move more weight easier on a catamaran (we are talking healing here, not forward momentum) or resist it.

TA, to clarify with your diagram, the taipan with wings is 2.66m wide as the rules state that the measurement is taken from leeward hull. So I could put 16cm wings on either side.

Scooby_Simon, see your point of taking into account rig weight aloft as this would fall over the pivot point quicker in my taipan v viper example, but have we measured the extra force you able to exert through the lever effect v this force of the mast over the pivot. Would be interesting to see these calcs in the whole picture.

Ahh, got you. Did not read the rule, however all else applies. Disadvantage is just not as small as I thought. Think of the weight of the hull and rig being brought closer to the pivot. Would be like only half trapping or hiking rather then full.

Used to have a pair of sportwings on my FX-One but took them off after a while because it doesnt really add anything other then another piece of kit you have to drag along to regattas.
Downwind those thing where horribly in the way and made it almost impossible to trap from the transom.
Upwind they would hit waves and the tubes would hurt my feet after a few hours, it also ment you would trap quite high which IMHO is not as pleasant (lower the better).

I think Macca is a bit obsessed with banana-boards today, after he spent all of yesterday playing around on the F20 Carbon ;-)

Not sure how you increase leverage. please explain.. your distance from the centre of lateral resistance is the same. Please explain to this old mind how you're increasing righting moment..

I asked a while ago and if I recall the crew must have at least one foot on the hull.. Otherwise one could trap on the shoulders of the other crew.. This would increase righting far more than any other option..

I thought the original poster, who asked about wings, was going to do some long distance race (6 days?) and wanted to be more comfortable, sitting on the wings, vs. hanging on a trap wire all day, for 6 days.

So...has anyone ever sailed a long distance race while sitting on the wings vs. trapping out? I know the Worrell guys trapped for 10 days or more, no wings there!

Yep! its awesome, and thats why its so daft to restrict such a good development in the class (if the philosophy is still to have it as a development class...) Right now you can spend a LOT of money on an F16 with carbon beams, mast, pole plus hull construction etc just to get an incremental but definite gain in performance. Yet something as simple as curved boards is not allowed which gives a measurable gain for not much cost increase over straight boards!

the max is 2.5 meters. Having a fixed beam of 2.66 would make the boat class illegal. Wing tip to wing tip.. Not hull to wingtip..
relevant rule. (from website)

1.2.3 Wings may be carried as long as the equivalent overall beam, when measured over the platform, and one fully extended wing is 2.5 m or less.

the main argument when this rule was passed was basically to ban "flying" F16s..

The collective at that time decided there could be an arms race to produce a flying boat.. *shrugs*

Do not understand the comment on pivot point; the pivot point for all forces IS the leeward hull; the only differece wings give you is to make the boat thinner and thus reduce the RM provided by the hull; the mast IS NOT the pivot point on a Cat; the leeward hull is. Remember the RM is there to overcome the lateral force created by the sail; this pivots at the leeward hull; you cannot use the standard "see-saw" diagrams to understand the forces as the heeling forces (sail forces) are at 90 degrees to the RM and so where EVER you put the mast; the heeling moment is the same and always resolves to the leeward hull.

From the original post, which has yet to be addressed:

"...I am doing regardless as i am entering a charity fundraiser which requires a 6 day coast sail and the wings as a seat will be awsome i can remove them later if they are just a hinderence thanks..."


So, would you add wings as a seat "for a 6 day fundraiser" or not?

maybe.. cruising is different from racing..

The wings will be made from my same wing mast section and be covered so will be fairly wide and nice to sit on and at 115kg my back will be thankfull...But here`s a new one to ponder seems we have so many RM experts here and im not, for years I have considered the value of having the mast on a slide on the cross beam with the stay wires and rather than cant the mast as was done in the AC how about simply slide the whole rig sideways please forget the ruls for a moment, how would this affect the RM? it would be simple to do but add a little weight and time to shift across, should of patented that...slide the base of the mast across to the windward hull stays and all, i have many drawings but not the maths to know if it would increase the RM and if it did then it would be a breakthrough unless you jibed real quick.

no need to move the whole thing, just cant the rig by shortening and lengthening the stays as per most multis, quite efective but you will be penalised on handicap ratings and it all gets a bit of string pulling excercise for little gain.

Thought about rotating the mast base in an arc centred from about the front stay area, lower it down to the leeward ( less RM )when getting overpowered or wanting to point better ( as per the windsurf rigs, it creates lift vertically of a form ), pull it back to the middle on the downwind run, certainly on the Bitsa's to do list.

You just answered your question by quoting the rule. The platform width of a Taipan is 2.34m. One extended wing is 0.16m which would make it to 2.5m. But wing to wing it is 2.66m.

TaipanFC is right

Wouter

I think your missing an issue.. If the wings are fixed you can only have wings that are 0.08 wide. This will take the width to the full 2.5.

If they are folding then yes you can have have the 0.16 wings. BUT if they stop folding you're illegal. I wonder if they stop folding in a race what happens?? Yes you started legally but you sailed illegally so guess disqualified??

As I see it your still only 2.5 meters from the point of lateral resistance.. So the difference standing on a gunwale or standing on a beam is?? What you suggesting is why not make your hulls 0.6 cm apart and only use wings.. Your thinking would suggest this is the fastest config? Tried this on an 18 and swum lots..
So Im still missing the advantage... just dumb I guess..

Stewart,

Taipanfc (james) is right. The rule is not concerned at all with the fact whether the wings are folding or not; it only equalizes the righting moments. To do so only requires the inclusion of one fully extended wing as the leeward hull is the pivot point and not the leeward wing.

Wouter

wouter Im still confused as to the advantage..

either way its just better to have a total beam rule. Wings are crap unless they are upright and replace sails

Men at work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO2aRBFwCHA&feature=related

stay tuned.... new professional video of the F20 is on the way

And responses to all the questions above?

Is it a lot faster than the old 20? The old one can't keep up with the moth once we get on the foils, upwind and downwind.

Moth can not keep up with the Tornado. Don't think the new 20 will have much trouble :-P

Haha, for the price and size it should! 54sq m of downwind sail v 8sq m is a big difference!

But have to say I am amazed how quick the moth is compared to the cats in singapore in the 8-15knot wind range.

How about pre 8 knots wind, last time I sailed with a foiling moth is was below 8 knots and he couldnt get it out of the water, a lot of hard work trying though, but when he did manage it really took off and left me for dead, pity he was 2 laps behind, sadly though the hard nosedives took their toll and split his deck, the boat = writeoff!!

Pre-foiling, cats leave us for dead.

But if you are nose-diving that often, then your foils aren't set up right. Can't prevent nosedives, but can certainly minimise their occurance.

And this has what exactly to do with wings on an F16 ?
Went out yesterday in 12-15knots, did 26,5knots..on a board. Since it wasn`t done on a winged F16, it doesn`t belong here.. just like F20, Tornados and foiling moths..
Back to topic, my understanding of the rule is that the boat is measured as platform including ONE wing, so if wings are not folding it doesn`t affect the application of the rule ? So a 2,2m platform with 2x 300mm fixed racks, would measure.. Or am I wrong in my interpretation of the rule ?
Some have said the racks can extend aft of the transom, do they not have to fit into the overall platform length ? This could be an interesting way of keeping the nose up downwind.

One can add aft racks As I read the rules the length is basically waterline length... But I have a feeling hidden somewhere in the ISAF rules there may well be a requirement to have at least one foot on the boat.. This is due to a crew in a 470 or 505 brother combo the crewing brother "hiked" out from his brothers shoulders. Now my memory could be faulty but someone with a younger brain may have the info at hand... This requirement would limit the "usable" aft extension and may not do more than a winger rudder setup.

Steve mozzies do belong here.. Still grandfathered..

Thanks Stewart, I meant that discussion around whether a moth is faster than a F20/Tornado/my mother-in-law on a skateboard does not belong in this thread, since it`s about F16 & wings/racks.
Now I have another question - if this is an ISAF rule (one foot on the boat) then does this not outlaw racks on all classes, how do the I14s, 18fters etc manage this ? What I understand is that F16 is not an ISAF registered class, does this mean they can ignore ISAF rules? This seems contetious as we all sail under the RRS which is administered by ISAF. And I`m still no wiser regarding how racks are measured in the F16 class, is it platform width plus ONE extended rack, even if the racks are fixed, not folding ? That`s how I understand it.
Not that I`m going to put 30cm racks on the Mozzie, just interested in the rule interpretation. I don`t think that it would change much and would add a whole lot of extra hassle, as most have said, wider beams would be the better option. (And higher-volume hulls.. and a taller mast.. might as well buy/build a proper F16 then.)

Threads evolve and move by questions and responses. As long as it doesn't fall into a dustfight of name-calling, then we don't need thread police. You never know where the exchange of knowledge may go.

To help equalise the narrower platforms, Taipans/Mozzies can put racks on the sides. These are measured from the leeward hull to the wing extension.

Personally I think these give more righting movement for those with wings. Mainly as i look at the rear view of the boat and the hull/platform/rig is acting as a level 3 lever. Scooby_Simon has a different view, and i am fine with that. Down to how you race 'em on the water.

14 Foot skiff rules - "Both members of the crew shall be in contact with the hull, fittings or gunwale assembly. Either, or both, may use a trapeze, individually or simultaneously. Trapezing is not allowed from any point outside the 4267mm length of the hull as defined in Rule 1."

Full rules here --> http://www.international14.org/images/pdfs/march%202010%20class%20rules.pdf

So do the F16 rules have anything in regards to aft wing extensions? And also describe what level of contact one must have with the boat?

I am not sure why we are asking this question re being further back from the transom, the boat would be so unbalanced and ponderous ( butt sitting in the water ) that you would be nothing but slow.

If you are having to go back behind the beam then your boat has to little foward bouyancy and the easiest way out would be to buy a couple of T foils. Also by going to the max spinny pole length and raising it slightly also seems to help lift the bow at speed.

The skiffs step off the back more to raise the bow because of the hull design, on the cats we should never really need to.

Wayne, my question relates to having a boat without the forward bouyancy of the modern F16 hull shapes. If you wanted to take a Mosquito or Cobra platform and put a full-size F16 rig on it you would want to be 2 feet behind the transom going downwind in most of the conditions we sail in. With the current 7,3m mast (1,2 shorter than F16) we already have too much sail up downwind, even 2-up, and get a few bus-stops on each downwind leg. Of course I would not want an 8,5m mast and sail areas that the F16 class allows if I can`t have banana boards, it makes no sense when you sail in the conditions we get more often than not. I would even prefer a smaller main and spinnaker for the Mosquito for those 28-35knot days.. ie every summer afternoon in Cape Town.

Hi All, I'm not sure what is meant by class 2 and 3 levers (and I have a masters degree in engineering!), but this looked like an interesting problem and I have been helping out a student doing these types of problems, so I thought I'd have a go.

So, I drew a couple of very simplified free body diagrams of a 2.2m beam cat with wing and a 2.5m beam without.

The diagram is drawn at the point that the windward hull just leaves the water and the crew(s) is not trapezing. It is simplified by assuming the heel angle will still be zero and it ignores the difference between the side and centreline of the hull. None of this should matter for comparison purposes. It also assumes that the force generated by the sail, height to centre of effort and crew weight remain constant.

So on the diagram F(crew) is the downward force of the weight of the crew, F(sail) is the sideways force generated by the sail, centred at a height of D(sail) from the waterline.

OK, so taking moments around point (0,0), we see that in both configurations a clockwise torque of F(sail)xD(sail) is generated. i.e. it doesn't matter to the mast what the beam is, the capsize force is the same.

Still taking moments about (0,0) in case 1, the righting moment produced by crew weight is 2.5xF(crew) and in case 2, it is also 2.5xF(crew).

So in other words, a 2.5m platform produces the same righting moment as a 2.2m platform with 0.3m wings.

There will however, be an advantage to the 2.5m platform in that is also gains more righting lever from the windward hull itself, since its self-weight will act further from the pivot.

Presumably the 2.5m platform will have less windage as well, and no wing dragging in the water to leeward. The 2.2m hull will probably lift a hull earlier, so maybe a lightwind advantage if the extra weight and air drag doesn't cancel it out.

So, conclusions? Designing a new F16 - 2.5m beam everytime.

Got a narrow grandfathered design, add wings to get the leverage but check this is actually faster once you've done it!

Its not so much the hull design as simply toooooo much sail area for the conditions, by stepping off the back all you are doing is depressing the leeward hull further which simply is going to make you slower which is simply going to make you more prone to digging the bows in. Bit of a vicous circle I'm afraid.

Steve,
The I14s have done many things in pushing their envelope.. Including flying I14s. I know of one skipper who build a rack behind the hull to trial.. Ended up the rudder foils were quicker..

I would thus suggest using rudder foils rather than an aft rack on a mozzie or cobra..

How many of you guys have sailed a F16 as is? I'm not busitng your chops, it's just that it is a hell of a platform as is.

Talk all you like. It's good that there is interest in the class and traffic on this forum is, overall, good. But for my 2 cents, it (F16) ain't broke and doesn't need fixing.

Cheers!

Im not suggesting modifying the rules.. T-foils are part of our rules..

Pete, the point is that the rules permit a certain amount of tinkering. T foils already exist within the class, AFAIK no one has yet added wings to an existing (underwidth) design but the rules do allow for it. It would be interesting to see whether this "self-cancelling advantage" purported under the rules actually works?
I'd love to see a T4.9 (or Mozzie) sporting wings which extend aft of the transom and whether the boat is then faster as a result?
Of course, learning to steer the thing downwind, in a blow, with a kite up, while trapezing from aft of the transoms will be interesting to say the least!!

This is the thread police. Nice excuse for littering, punk.