A year of testing has passed : time to evaluate

Dear fellow F16 sailors and enthousiasts.



A year of testing the framework has passed and the time to evaluate the F16 framework is at hand. I've contacted and been contacted by several builders, homebuilders and Sailors and we, as a class, have a few points that need discussing.



Ofcourse the intent of this is to modify the rules were necessary and reconfirm the rules where it has proved to work. The final result will be a frameset that will be permanently fixed and that can only be changed in increasingly rare cases of inequality or risk of personal injury.



All in all not a unimportant excersize.



The issues will each be discussed in seperate post linked to this thread and each issue will be decided by a vote which is open to all enthousiasts. Feel free to contribute and vote.



The current message functions as an announcement and to give a describtion of the current situation so that everybody is voting on the issues with equal knowledge of the background.



First of all :



- The builders -



Are at this time AHPC (Taipan); Stealth Marine ; Bimare

With added boats of comparable performance made by Swell Catamarans (Spitfire) and Ventilo (Zipo 16)

There are two persons/companies on the side who are currently investigating producing pure F16's of their own; One of them has just indicated willingness to build a prototype.





- The class-



The main stay of the F16 class is currently the USA with some 15 boats; next is The EU with a total of 12 boats (not counting the German Taipan + spi sailors or the Spitfires) ; Ofcourse Australia is slowly getting more involved through Rob Wilson, James Sage, Phill Brander and Steward. Some other crews next to these have also shown interest or even have put spis on their boats.



Currently Rob Wilson is helping the class out with a new website which will replace the old website that is frequently in breach of the monthly transfer rate and amount of webspace.



Class ratings have been attained under Texel and the US portsmouth systems and we are currently discussing a rating under ISAF. The Australian Victory system is expected to get a comparable listing when the Taipan + spi are entered in open races there. The last can well be a matter of days.



The class has been succesful in making the class known to several sailmakers; A quick list : Randy Smyth, Goodall yacht sails, Peter Vink, Arjan Kooij and Redhead sails. All of these know what the general setup is, where to find the rules and how to contact the class.



Currently we are trying to establish contact with German?polish catbuilder to see wether they are interested in boosting their prototype 16 footer to the F16 specs.



The immediate next goal of the class is to improve the website and the availability of information on the class as well as the individual designs. Parallel to this, the framework will be evaluated and permanently fixed.





- The ground principle of the class -



A simple affordable boat with enough flexibility to be sailed and raced competitively solo, with crew made up of teenagers, parent and child, a man and a woman or light to medium weight males.



The versatility has been confirmed by sailors like Micheal Coffman, Phill Brander and Mike Crawford. Micheal is a light weight guy of 135 lbs (61 kgs) and was very comfortable sailing the Taipan 4.9 solo. He also sailed the Taipan with spi with his wife and found it to be just right; his combined crew weight was about 265 lbs = (120 kg's). His setup closely resembles the overall weight what you expect from a crew of teenagers, parent+ child teams and light husband and wife teams.



Geert Reusink and John Pierce showed that the F16 concept was competitive in relation to F18 designs with a crew weight of about 300 to 310 lbs.



Mike Crawford showed how to exploit the flexibility of the F16 boats by taking on a novice sailor and leaving of the jib and spi in a distance race. The Taipan showed to be fast and exciting in comparison to Inter 20's without overstretching the crew.



Both Kirt Simmons and Chuck Harnden showed that even a F16 in uni-rig mode without a spi was a very competitive design and wouldn't be left behind by TheMightyHobie18's and H20 in open fleet regatta's. Bill Moran has indicated that he thinks that this setup is a very good setup to start out on the learning curve of a modern style high performance catamaran.



To finish of the describtion : Elliot Tonkes showed by a well executed mathematical analyses of the Taipan 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 nationals that it can be expected that the F16 framework would centre its ideal competitive crewweight around 135 kg's (= 300 lbs) with a rather flat weight dependence over the range 120 kg's to 150 kg's. The last with regard to doublehanded sailing ofcourse. Most crews will fall into that range; especially the teenager, parent+kid, male-female and light to medium male crews.



Several sailors that have sailed with the 21 sq. mtr. and 17,5 sq mtr. spi have indicated that the 17,5 sq.mtr. is the better balanced chute for the F16 platform. It sits right, it is handled well by novice crews and wifes and doesn't really feel any slower at all.

This confirms the choice for this (maximum) size of the F16 spi.



Solo sailors on the Taipan and Stealths have indicated that the current mainsail on the F16's has plenty of power and is about right if not “maxed-out”. One sailor expressed that he felt more comfortable on these platforms than on an A-cat and that the difference in performance felt small. He may be very kind to the F16 concept as the A-cat is undeniably an upwind monster. But the point here is that he felt more comfortable on the F16 than on the A-cat without feeling noticably slower and that was just the point we were aiming for.



Comments made by other solo sailors confirmed that solo sailing the F16's is demanding but within the reach of relatively inexperienced crews. These skippers felt challenged (some say exited) but nevertheless still comfortable and in control. David Swingle expressed similar comment with regard to singlehanding the manual spi setup as do I myself. Snuffers would be even more comfortable.



How about affordability ? Well that is one topic that will be voted on. Several builders and designers have indicated that they can reach a minimum weight of 100 kg's but that it would involve much higher costs than would be adviceable. For now lets say that wew are still a considerable amount cheaper than our direct competitors like the F18’s, I17R’s and FX-ones.



So here it is; over the coming week I will add more and more topics to the discussion and I’m looking forward to closing the discussions with a vote before halve oktober.



If anybody has issue with the rules that now is the time to express it.



With kind regards,



Wouter Hijink



Chairman of the Formula 16 HP class

Currently we use the Texel / ISAF rule for determining the maximum length of the gennaker (spinnaker) pole on the F16's.



Although this is a good rule the wording can be regarded as needlessly complex and somebody proposed the following change in wording that would not change the meaning of the rule.



Current rule :



The genaker boom may not be longer than the longest distance between the

fixing point (like on mast or mastbeam) and the theoretical uttermost forward

end of the boat + 0,8 mtr.



Contrary to ISAF rule 64.2 it is allowed to fix the genaker boom to the forward beam.



The genaker boom shall be fixed and approximately on the longitudinal

centreline of the boat.





Proposed rule :



The length of the genaker boom may not be more than 3,5 meters with the horinzontal distance between the fixed end of the pole and the leading edge of the unrotated mast is considered to be part of the pole. (changed)



Contrary to ISAF rule 64.2 it is allowed to fix the genaker boom to the forward beam. (unchanged)



The genaker boom shall be fixed and sit approximately on the longitudinal centreline of the boat. (changed)







Reasons for this change :



-1- The new rule is easier to comprehend by non-mathematically skilled sailors (Youths ?) And it is far easier to check at regatta's.



-2- Also on the F16 platform the TEXEL / ISAF rule pretty much assigns 3,48 to 3,52 mtr. long poles to each different F16 design anyway. Why not set the average of these results as the limit.



-3- The main issue from the performance and equality point of view is the size of the slot between the mast and luff of the spinnaker anyway. The proposed rule modification makes this slot equal on all F16 designs independent of the individual placings of the mainbeam or issues like toe-in of hulls. Or even the fact that some grandfathered boats are less wide than allowed. In the old rule these would get an extra hit.



-4- It pretty standardizes the size of the poles and would open up the exchange of gear between brands.



-5- last but not least; The new rule is as good as equal to the Texel / ISAF rule in its final result; give or take an inch; who is going to mind ?





Okay guys your turn to shoot holes in this proposal or give your support for it.



Wouter

Currently the rule on minimum overall weight is worded as :



The minimum weight of the boat ready to sail, excluding non permanently fixed wings, is fixed at :



1-up (cat rigged with genaker gear) : 95,0 kg.

2-up (sloop rigged with genaker gear) : 100,0 kg.



(just to illustrate: 95 kgs = 210 pounds, 100 kgs = about 221 pounds)





Proposal # 1 : is to raise the minimum weight of the doublehanded F16 boat to 105 kg's.



Proposal # 2 : is to raise the minimum weight of the singlehanded boat to 102 kg's. Or better put, place the singlehander at 3 kg's less than the doublehander instead of the 5 kg's ued now.





The proposed new rule when combining both proposals is :



The minimum weight of the boat ready to sail, excluding non permanently fixed wings, is fixed at :



1-up (cat rigged with genaker gear) : 102,0 kg.

2-up (sloop rigged with genaker gear) : 105,0 kg.



(just to illustrate: 102 kgs = 227 pounds, 105 kgs = about 232 pounds)





The reasons for this proposal (coming from multiple parties) :



Proposal -1-



-1- The minimum weight of 100 kg's overall is attainable but at a price. Builders have expressed that this price may well be in conflict with the F16 class goal of offering affordable High Performance boats. The extra 5 kg doesn't affact performance much but does add a considerable amount of cost. The last is mainly caused by the fact that builders must use carbon poles and booms as well as super light boards, rudders and stocks to get down that low. Most have indicated that they don't want to shave of the 5 kg's off the hulls to keep the platform strong and stiff. The cheaper alu parts are also simplier (and cheaper) for the boat owner to replace himself or repair himself.



-2- The sailors of the grandfathered boats including spinnaker gear will be withing 1 or 2 kg's of the 105 kg's minimum overall weight. With a (heavier) snuffer system and carbon mast they will be right on the 105 kg's mark. The owners of these boats who have been very supportive in the early stages will be garanteed that they will stay competitive with the newly designed boats. This is of particular importance to the Taipan 4.9 spi sailors.



-3- The crews racing under the ISAF handicap system no longer require to carry corrector weights to be rated equally to the F18 class rating.



-4- the calculated performance loss is only 0,65 * 36 secs = 23 seconds per hour = less than 1 %. The savings in costs could be in the order of 1000,- USD or Euros = about 10 %



-5- The end result will be a F16 platform that is both cheaper and more robust and that can realistically be build by homebuilders from simple materials (no oven to cook carbon etc)





Proposal -2-



-1- The main idea behind the 1-up / 2-up F16 class is that a 2-up F16 can easily be converted to a competitive 1-up platform by taking the jib and jib blocks off and some stuff like the second trapeze wires. According to builders and people in the know the leaving off of these things will only account for some 2 kg's and not the 5 kg's that was assumed in the current rules. The gap of 5 kg's would allow the creation of specialized 1-up platforms that could never be converted back to the 2-up setup. This could cause inequality within the 1-up class. 3 kg's (a safety margin of 1 kg) was proposed as a much more fair reduction in weight.



-2- The lighest 1-up with spi currently is the Taipan 4.9 with spi. The spi gear was earlier determined to be around 5 kg's with relatively simple, robust and inexpensive materials. The Taipan catrigged has a minimum class weight of 97 kg's ; when the spi is added it will come out at exactly of the new minimum overall 1-up weight of 102 kg's.



-3-When the newer designs take of teh 2 kg's jib gear and related stuff they will come out at 103 kg's which is well within the fair range of truelly competiveness weights when the minimum is set at 102 kg's.



Your reactions please; both when in support or against this proposal

De rule itself will remain unaltered as she works and is used by ISAF and Texel measureres as well as in teh F18 and iF20 class rules.



However, by measuring our own spinnakers we found that the new high aspect spinnakers of today very closely approximate the formula



SMG = 75 % * SF instead of SMG > 75 % * SF



In other words they are compliant with the rule SMG > 75 % * SF by being just an extremely small fraction wider then SMG = 75 % * SF.



Thanks to a friend who did do the math on the subject de calculation rule for the size of spinnaker could be made much less complex.



Under the assumption that SMG = 75 % * SF the formula for the size given by



area = SF * (SL1+SL2) / 4 + (SMG-SF/2) * (SL1+SL2) / 3



simplifies to :



area = 1/3 * SF * (SL1 + SL2)



Where



* SF is the length of the foot measured around the edge of the sail between the lowest points of the luff and the leech ;



* SL1 is the length of the luff of the sail, from the highest point of the sail, to the lowest point of the sail on the luff ;



* SL2 is the length of the leech of the sail measured along the edge of the sail, from the highest point of the sail, to the lowest point of the sail on the leech.



And SMG is is the width at mid-height, which shall be taken between the mid point of the luff and the mid point of the leech





Clearly the second rule is much easier to use during boat checks at regatta's and most people will understand the second formula and not the first.



Remember that both rules give the same results ! The rule itself hasn't been changed.



The proposal is that the new wording is something analogue to.



The spinnaker must satisfy the condition : SMG > 75% * SF



Way of calculating the area:



When the spinnaker satisfies the condition 75 % * SF < SMG =< 77 % * SF than the area is calculated using the formula :



area = 1/3 * SF * (SL1 + SL2)



if the spinnaker satisfies the condition SMG > 77% * SF than the original ISAF formula is used :



area = SF * (SL1+SL2) / 4 + (SMG-SF/2) * (SL1+SL2) / 3



Where :



Bla, bla, bla



**



Or maybe somebody has a better, even simpler, wording that leaves the meaning in tact but makes the whole rule easier to understand.



One party suggested that the class could rule that all the spis used satisfy the condtion 75 % * SF < SMG < 77% * SF and just have the derived formula in our rules set.



This condition will still be fully compliant with the Texel and ISAF rules and all new spis are practically of the condition SMG = 75% * SF anyway. So no-one would get hurt.



Any ideas with respect to this topic ?

Currently the F16 rules state that :



The mast :



The length of the mast, excluding the mast foot, shall not be more than 9 mtr.



There shall not be more than 0,1 mtr distance between the bottom of the

mastsection and the top of the forebeam.



The circumference of the mast section shall not be more than 0,500 mtr.





The new proposed rule is (also reworded) :





The mast



The circumference of the mast section shall not be more than 0,500 mtr.



The distance between the base of the mast section and the top of the forebeam may never be more than 0,1 mtr. This distance is referred to as "the mast foot"



The distance from the base of the mast section to the top of the mast may not be more than 8,5 mtr. This distance is referred to as mast length.



A piece of mast section and fitting, combined no taller then 0,075 mtr, with the sole purpose of hoisting and holding up the mainsail may be excluded from the mast length measurement when the distance between the highest point of the hoisted mainsail on the mast and the base of the mast section is no more than 8,5 mtr. This part of the mast is referred to as "the mast crane" and it must be clearly and visibliy seperated from the mast section that is measured to be 8,5 mtr. The mainsail may never be hoisted past the marker.





As you can see the wording has changed somewhat too. However the meaning of the rules has remained unaltered with the exception of the lower mast length ; te proposal states that this should be reduced from 9 mtr. to 8,5 mtr. The extra rule concerning the mast crane is to allow the mainsail to be really hoisted up to 8,5 mtr. This is done to equalizes the Hobie masthook fittings with the ring and hook fittings.



The reason for the reduction in mast height are :



-1- All modern 16 ft designs come out with 8,5 mtr. masts anyway. The Stealth, The Ventio zipo 16, the Spitfire Cirrus Energy, etc. It looks like this is the optimal rig length for a 16 foot platform anyway. The new F16 design from an undisclosed party will also use a 8,5 mtr. rig.



-2- The sailors currently involved have expressed that they feel the 8,5 mtr. rig is powerfull enough and that a taller mast isn't needed. Several tests with very capable (but undisclosed) sailors have shown that the 8,5 mtr. rig wasn't much slower at all with regard to A-cat rigs even in light winds.



-3- The analysis of Elliot Tonkes (Taipan nationals 2000/2001 and 2001/2002) showed the 8,5 rig to already put the competitve weight around 135-140 kg's. Going for a taller rig would only shift the optimal weight to higher crewweigths and decentre the optimal crewweight in the 120 to 150 kg's that was its intended crewweight range.



-4- The 8,5 mtr. rig will immediately level out all of the grandfathered boats and new boats with respect to the rig. As far as I'm aware only the Bim F16 from W.F. and my own Typhoon F16 boat have 9 mtr. tall masts All other boat owners sail with 8,5 mtr. masts anyway; this includes the other Bim F16 sailors that are involved. I'm willing to cut down my own mast when needed.



-5- It would be a great gesture towards the great crews of grandfathered boats that have helped create the class and have been so instrumental in its growth. For example; this rule in combination with the 105 kg's proposal will garantee that grandfather boat sailors like the Taipan 4.9 spi crew will stay competitive indefinately. It will also lock in the Aussie grandfathered F16 boat sailors into the class and not clash with their other one-design aspirations. The last is no small advantage.



-6- The reduction ofs the mastheight will strongly decrease the number of different rigs that the F16 class boats couldl harbour. The rigs in the class will more resemble one -another and thus increase fairness of racing as well take away the cause of some nervousness that this issue seems to work up here and there.



Anyone against; Anyone in favour ?



Lets here it

Just received this input, which I personally think is a good one. I will try to convey the message in my own words.:



The performance equalisation rule is currently a length rule aimed at equalling out performance over a wider range of crewweights. It isn't used at this time but was left in just in case we were to find a need for it.



Experience thus far has shown that the optimal competitive wreweweight is rather higher than lower and it is centred at 135 and 140 kg's. It is also found that the dependency is rather flat which means that crews in the range from 120 to 150 stand very good changes of making a win.



But a more important point made was that the F18 class is looking at scrapping the jib rule as it isn't perceived to work. Add to this that the 21 sq.mtr. spinnaker is considered to big for the platform by some sailmakers and crew alike will all but nullify the effectiveness of such a rule.



Clearly without a noticable need or effectiveness of the Equalisation rule were are better of with the much simplified wording of the rules.



Also the values used now are the same for all boats and roles anyway. Scrapping the rule would hit nobody.

I prefer the old rule..

Are you going to suggest to WF he now needs to cut 0.5 meters off his Bim 16 mast and your going to cut 0.5 meters off your rig?

The 9 mtr boats which are build before the date of a possible acceptance of the rules will be permanently dispensated. For life as they say. My current count is there is only one 9 mtr. or even over-8,5-mtr rig right now next to my own.



As the chairman of the class I don't have the luxury of dispensating myself, so yes I will cut of my mast, my mainsail will not be to much of a problem as I ordered that one with alot of boom clearance. It will just sit lower on boat now with or without a few minor modifications.



Wouter

than to have 15 T4.9 sailors in the u.s. buy new masts (not gonna happen, it would just make 4.9 sailors less supportive of f16). Same for Stealth and Aus T4.9 sailors.

BTW, WF no longer races his Bim 16... so it would only affect him for resale.

I vote for the new mast height, as it only affects one boat in the world and would make the Stealths and T4.9's permanently competetive.

Michael Coffman

T4.9 #32

Wouter(and all)-

Should we permanently dispensate the BOATS or the MASTS on those boats? That is, if the buyers of (this/ these?) boats replace their mast(s) they must adhere to the 8.5m rule?

Also, I noted in the rules the jib leech can not be convex - but I believe one of the proposed boats (and other selftacking jib cats) technically have convex leeches and (at least one) full batten and I would be in favor of allowing this.



Kirt

Hi Wouter and friends…

I would like to share some thought on the matter of the rule changes…especially the weight and Mast height.



Although my boat is far from completed…and the proposed changes will not cause me to modify anything that I have built so far…I have to say my vote is no to the changes on weight and mast height for the following reasons…



The thing that attracted me to the F-16HP in the first place was the freedom of rules…or maybe better stated…a minimum of rules, which allowed for a tremendous amount of experimentation while still keeping the perimeters tight enough to insure fair competition.



Our class was described as cutting edge…with flexibility in the design criteria to inspire builders to stretch out of their comfort zones, and help bring cat sailing into the 21 century. Now after a year, which really hasn’t allowed much time for development, we are looking at lowering the bar…inching back toward the same old same old…I have to ask why?



No one seems to think there is any significant advantage to having a 9 meter mast over a 8.5 meter mast…if this is the case…why not leave it as it is…at least it allows for further development…why stifle creativity? The rig design will seek its own optimum…why put artificial restrictions on it? In what real way is it hurting the class? Is it some kind of psychological disadvantage to race against someone whose mast is 19-1/2” longer?



Increasing the minimum weight …As far decreasing the weight difference between one up and two up I have no quarrel…the idea of a 3 Kg difference seems logical. Raising the minimum weight of the class as a whole I see as counter productive to the original intent of being “cutting edge”…again…Why not leave room for improvement? Why go backwards?



I am in full agreement that we need to work, with not against the boat builders who express and interest in marketing a cat within the F-16HP class. But the standards have been set, it is up to the manufactures to meet the criteria in place, not the other way around. There is a lot of room for innovation…and we are not necessarily talking about autoclave technology here…



Right now I can buy 5.7 oz Carbon fiber cloth 0/90 50” wide for $17.94 a lineal yd. ($108.00 US per layer/per hull) or 5.0 oz Kevlar cloth 0/90 50” wide for $13.98 a lineal yd. (About $84.00 US per layer/per hull) or 6 oz S-glass 0/90 60” wide for $11.27 a lineal yd (About $70.00 US per layer/per hull) I am talking Retail prices here…If you are buying wholesale in large enough quantities the price could be a much as 40% less. Any one of these fabrics could be used to decrease the weight of the hulls. It would not be necessary to gain all the weight reduction by going to carbon spars, although it is the best place to reduce weight.



This is assuming they are already using a quality Vinylester resin…I would think no one would be using Iso or Ortho Polyester at this point in time.



I am not accusing anyone of over pricing there product, I am not accusing anyone of making an inferior product…Boat builders are in business to make a profit… and if they don’t, we all lose… it’s an incredibly nasty, obnoxious job to build a GRP boat… and they deserve every penny they get…I am just saying there are alternatives out there…and IF there is a reason to build a better “mouse trap” someone will eventually build it…and the others will quickly follow…but if the incentive is taken away…there will be little to inspire change, especially since there is so little profit built into the product as it is. After all we are only talking 11 pounds here…5% of the overall all up weight…it is possible…and possible at a reasonable cost…it’s just a lot easier to maintain the status quo…



As I look at the proposed changes, I can’t help but notice that the new minimums would put the Taipan 4.9 very near the optimum design parameters. The only thing lacking is to narrow up the beam specification and it would make the Taipan fully optimized…Is that going to be the next proposed change? From what I read here on the forum, the Taipan is by far the best represented boat of the class…and don’t get me wrong…I love the Taipan 4.9 and the boat I am building borrows from it liberally…but I thought this was suppose to be a box rules F-16HP class? If I knew from the onset that the F-16HP class was going to evolve into another name for the Taipan 4.9 one design class, I would have built a compliant Tiapan 4.9 one design… Also, are the other commercial boat builders going to perceive this as favoritism? Whether intentional or not?



So in conclusion…I would like to say…please let the maximum weight of the two-up remain at 100 Kg. (bring the one up weight to 97 KG if necessary) and leave the Mast height at 9 Meters. Lets keep the possibilities wide open, at the forefront of the fleet. If we start compromising now we might be taking the first step toward mediocrity…



Thank you for letting me share my opinions, and it is my hope that I have not offended anyone here with what I have said…I like to have all the facts on the table when I go about making a decision, especially one that will have such lasting ramifications.



Peace

Seeker,

You made some very good points, and from the perspective of a class starting purely from scratch, I'd be inclined to agree with you, if I weighed 190 lbs. However, please consider a few things:

1. mast height - why do you say 19 inches is not significant? How many 28 ft. A-class masts do you see? Personally, I believe that 19 inches cat-rig could be a significant advantage, with proper crew weight. It would probably only be a few boatlengths, but that wins races. And possibly more importantly, it would move the ideal 1-up weight up to 180-190, or more. This really isn't too questionable... look at A-classes. Remember, this class is designed with couples, juniors, lightweights in mind. There are a number of classes out there in the "beefy" range.

2. You inferred that it would only benefit the T4.9, and that this was favoritism. Actually, it would mean that BOTH the T4.9 and Stealth were closer to optimum. If anything the weight would help the Stealth more than the T4.9. And the T4.9 would still not have quite the max. beam. And currently, these are the ONLY 2 designs with any real volume of production. So what manufacturers would be offended?

3. How much participation/support do you want to have from T4.9 and Stealth owners? The expectation that they support (and in fact make up a vast majority of) the class is at odds with the expectation that they give up a significant amount of mast height (both T4.9 and Stealth). You asked "in what real way is this hurting the class." Well, I know of a number of T4.9 sailors who are quite leery of supporting a class for which their boats are NOT optimised. This seems very "real" to me. In fact, I have delayed ordering a new main for this reason.

4. You said "As I look at the proposed changes, I can’t help but notice that the new minimums would put the Taipan 4.9 very near the optimum design parameters." Well, that is exactly the intent, and to "optimize" the Stealth as well. Are you telling me that you expect me to support a class in which I'm NOT "near the design parameters?" This is what truly concerns me. On the one hand, you say that these differences are minor, and of uncertain benefit. On the other, you say that you DON'T want the Taipan to be close to optimum...



If this is to be based on the F18-style racing, then there SHOULDN'T be huge differences in mast height, weight, etc. Rather, the differences should be in sails, hull design, blade design, self-tackers, snuffers, etc. The question isn't WHETHER there is a mast height restriction, there already is one. It is only about adjusting it.

You spoke about "lowering the bar." Well, if the T4.9 and stealth are what you are "lowering" it to, is this mediocrity? Personally, I think the T4.9 is fast as hell.

Please don't take this as an attack on you... your argument was well thought out, and I have a lot of respect for anyone willing to build their own boat. But these were a few points which you might not have thought of.

Thanks,

Michael C.

T4.9#32

P.S. Maybe this will put everything in perspective as to why many of us who already have boats feel so strongly about this vote: new masts and sails for all the T4.9's in the U.S would come to something like a combined U.S. $40,000. For the Aussie boats and the U.K. Stealth's, who knows. And yet making this change in wording would cost nothing to anyone. Is it really worth splitting the class over?

Hi Michael



My only intent was to petition to keep things they way they are…The Taipan has what it’s designers feel is the optimized rig…obviously by the number sold, many share that belief. Stealth must have felt the same way in regard to mast height. You state that if the mast height was kept at 9 meters, the ideal one up weight would be closer to 190 lb. or more…and here you are making my point for me…if you weigh 150 lb? (I weigh about 170) would you want a 9-meter mast if it has to be used in all conditions? Probably not…you would choose what worked best for you…are you going to deny the heavier sailor the ability to even the playing field? After all the sail area is going to remain constant.



I was under the impression that differences in the boat designs were one of the favorable attributes of the F-16HP class…not a liability…it’s not one design…its box rules…difference in design IS a part of the overall concept. You are not just racing the other sailor…like you do in one design…you are racing the other sailor and his equipment…like it or not, that’s a fact…If you want to race with other sailors on other boat designs and you think everything is going to be equal…well…you might want to rethink your position…



I thought that was the great thing about so many of you having the Taipan 4.9, you could race one design when you wanted a very ridged boat for boat equality. And also race in a more open setting within the F-16HP class. As you already noted the Taipan is a very fast boat and has already had sail concessions made within the F-16HP class if I remember correctly, so where the beef? The best of both worlds…just because someone shows up with a boat that’s 11 lbs lighter than yours or has a slightly higher mast than yours doesn’t automatically mean he/she is going to win, and you are going to lose…



Stealth had the opportunity to design its boat to optimize the F-16HP rules and it chose to go with the 8.5-meter mast…why not let the other Designer/builders/manufactures have the same freedom to design? Taipan and Stealth may be the only ones currently in productions but I was under the impression that others were in process of developing one as well.



Why must everything revolve around one boat in a box rules setting…regardless of how great it is? You have one design racing and F-16HPracing…how about giving a little room to breath?



Peace

Michael, Seeker-

Both well thought out, constructive posts-

Let me just add a few comments for consideration:

Mast height- I agree if this is left "open" an "optimum" height will be arrived at through trial and error- But from my experience in the "A"'s and 18 sq's this is a somewhat pricey procedure requiring both mast and sail alterations which can be quite expensive and/or result in different "rigs" for different conditions. All current "A" rigs are pretty "standardized" at ~9m because that's what seems to be consistently fast on that boat currently so all the masts at the Worlds were quite close in height despite different mains, sailors and hulls. Apparently all the current F 16HP compliant boat builders (except the one-off US BIM 16) have settled on an 8.5m mast height so there must be SOME "magic" (at least perceived) to this height on these boats. Limiting to this height will simply "push" builders, sailmakers and mastbuilders to optimize within these confines and not even have to consider 8.6m, 8.7m, 8.8m, 8.9m or 9m masts (Who knows where the "max" is right now or will be?). Since current masts are this height it at least allows a starting point for further mast/sail experimentation w/o having to buy a new mast to begin with or worry about the effects of the additional 0.1-0.5m in length change along with the changes that are inherent in that. Yes, we are a "box rules" class, but like the F18 class we are trying to keep the class reasonably even in competitiveness as well as affordable. That is why we chose the "HP" (High Performance) over the "HT" (High Tech) in the class name.

Weight- Even the Taipan class has recently increased the minimum weight of the uni boats because it was felt that home built boats could not be built to the prior minimum and be competitive or long lasting (even though the production ones could) so they "uped" the min. to keep everybody "even".

The "A"'s used to have NO min. weight when I first got involved and persons were building flyweight custom boats that won big regattas and then self-destructed shortly thereafter. The class polled all the manufacturers (realizing that the "key" to success of the class was to be supported by the builders of the boats) as to what they considered the lightest weight was they could achieve building a durable cost-effective boat and the class "temporarily" established a class minimum. The class grew exponentially in popularity after that. The Taipan was already close to optimal because it was one of the original designs close to 16 feet long (it's short too by the way!) that was similar enough that we got the idea to try to develop a new Formula class based on 16 foot boats. The Stealth, BIM 16, and Taipan characteristics were all considered when establishing these parameters and all are "close" to optimal, but all were "suboptimal" in some sense but not necessarily the same sense (although all were over the minimum weight set).

As to the comment about increasing optimal weight with a taller rig- this may be true- but the "A"'s are able to stay competitive through a wide crew weight by using different mast/main combinations. I realize we aren't the same since we have 2' less waterline and this DOES make a difference but we are also 6" wider (if "optimal") and have spis.

There is also the possibility of having a "graduated" weight reduction in the class (ie the min. weight decreases by some set amount every ____ years) - This is something the "A"'s have considered to help promote "development" in the class but even in that class there are some strong advocates against it.

Michael

I really don’t understand your comment about all the US Taipan sailors having to buy new masts…With the exception of Kirt…didn’t all of the US Taipan owners buy them after the F-16HP concept was brought into being? Didn’t all of these owners buy their boats with the 8.5-meter mast knowing full well it was not the maximum length? (This is a question, as I do not know the exact date that the 9-meter length was adopted)…



Why all the sudden, would any US Taipan 4.9 owner want to buy a new mast? And make his boat non-legal for Taipan one design? If you are in the optimum weight category why would you buy a longer mast if it was going to give you inferior performance to lengthen it? Would you buy one just for the privilege to say you had longest mast that the rules would allow? Bragging rights? I don’t understand? Please explain.



To take into consideration a parallel issue…I have not heard of a stampede to buy new cross beams/trampolines/standing rigging because the Taipan in not maximum width. Why would one do so with the mast? Especially when it has been the rule from the beginning? I don’t think that argument holds any water…



In one of the former posts, Michael I see your weight at 135 lb…if this is correct…putting the average sailor weight at about 165lbs you have a -30# advantage in light air… Wouter would have to do the math…but I would suspect it would take close to an additional ½ meter of mast to equal that out for the 165 lb sailor in light conditions…any comments?



As far as my being against the Taipan being optimized…nothing could be further from the truth…that is the very thing that set me …(and from what I understand Wouter) on the path of creating our own F-16HP. I am all for it…we just see it form different sides…you favor the rules to be tailored to the existing boat…I favor making a boat to fit the new rules…I concede that your way is the most cost effective way from the stand point of a existing Taipan owner…but I though this was to be a new class?…Why for example should I build a boat who’s design criteria was to fit in the standard width of an Australian garage when I live in North America with no such constraints? Does that make any sense to you?



I am starting to believe it is all in ones perspective of what constitutes one design, and what constitutes boxes rules…maybe I am the one who is out of focus on this issue…maybe I am looking at it as more developmental than its creators had intended…or it may be that I am coming at it as one who enjoys the design/build aspect as much as the sailing itself…I must admit if I had never been involved in boat building and trying to push design parameters, then like you Michael, I would probably be more inclined to gravitate towards a more homogenized approach…not saying one is better than the other…just two very different perspectives. I can appreciate that you spent $11,000 + on a boat that is class competitive, and have a very real fear that someone is going to make a major break through that could turn your thoroughbred into an also ran (as I was told happened in the 18 square class).



I in no way want to inject anything that would fracture the integrity of or “split the class” I am just honestly sharing some concerns I have about the future of this potentially awesome catamaran class. Personally I am disappointed that we chose to limit our performance to that of the F-18 class. But I understand why the class took that tactic, and accept it as such.



I find it refreshing that the class has been set up in such a way that I even have an opportunity to express these viewpoints.



The majority has ruled in every issue put before this group …and it will in this case as well, I am sure. Since the Taipan owner represent the lion share of the participants, it will be decided by them…that is the way it works…and I have no problem with that. The case that I am arguing is one for maximum freedom of design…if the class chooses to limit that…so be it…at least you know where I stand.



I might add that I doubt that my boat will come in a 100 Kg. Or even 105 Kg. As I have added additional freeboard compared to the Taipan…so I have nothing to gain personally…I would like the freedom to use a 9 meter stick, if that is what I thought would work to my best advantage…but I will abide whatever the class chooses.



I didn’t quite understand Kirt’s reference to the production boats coming in lighter than the Timber ones… the information I heard said just the opposite…That a Timber boat built with care and an eye on watching the weight going in may actually come in under weight and need correctors. Who’s right? I don’t know…



Peace

My platform is a stretched twin moth setup.. ie I stretched a local moth hull to 16'3.. Made two and in the process of bolting them together.. How fast will this be I have no idea.. Im a skiffie so the limiting factor will be the skipper.. With luck we should be under the class weight and still be strong enough to hold in the local conditions..



As for your agruments..

In my experience in open classes.. teams developed rig heights that worked best for them.. Yes it cost more in development and time.. lighter crews ended up with shorter rigs.. Heavier crews with taller rigs.. The speed difference was equalized..



With offending if this is truely valid .. perhaps we should look at restricting to the class to only the Tiapan and the Stealth .... Im sure both manufacturers would be happy and no other manufaturers would be offended either since they arent currently making any volume numbers?



I cant see the F16 taking off here unless its truely devopmental.. Why support a class when one can go purchase a T4.9 and sail in the local T4.9 fleet? We wont be seeing any Bims or Stealths down here.. There wouldnt be any incentive to experiment.. No experimentation no F16 class...

we can have discussions without resorting to name-calling ;-)

An answer to some of your points:

1. "Taipan is a very fast boat and has already had sail concessions made within the F-16HP class if I remember correctly, so where the beef? "

Answer: none, sloop-rigged. That's where the sail-area concession came, in the jib. The cat-rig has a shorter mast AND less sail area. That's the beef. Do YOU want to sail with a shorter mast and less sail area than the guy next to you with the same rating? No, of course you don't.

2. "Didn’t all of these owners buy their boats with the 8.5-meter mast knowing full well it was not the maximum length?"

Answer: yes, assuming that they a) planned on racing f16, and b) realized that the rules allowed for taller masts. Unfortunately, this is not the case for many people. A number of people in the U.S. and of course Aus bought their boats either before F16, with F16 as a nice opportunity to sail with a spinnaker (majority) or with the assumption (supported by the F16 class) that their boats were "practically f16's" (majority). What it boils down to is, do you want these people to become more involved? That's what this is all about.

3. "Why all the sudden, would any US Taipan 4.9 owner want to buy a new mast."

Answer: reality check. Within reason, you can make a boat SOMEWHAT faster by adding both mast height AND crew weight. How many competetive 140 lb. A-class skippers do you see racing with 28 ft. masts? NONE. You just see a few 140-150 lb a-class skippers with 30ft. masts who just take their lumps in anything above 9kts windspeed. Ask the Aussies if they think even the 4.9 (remember, less mast and sail area) is a "lightweight's" boat.

3. "I would suspect it would take close to an additional ½ meter of mast to equal that out for the 165 lb sailor in light conditions…any comments?"

Answer: yes. Let me get this straight. You want me to give up any advantage I have in 1-7, by allowing you to have a taller mast. You are then going to have an advantage in 8+ as well, since you are heavier, and have a wider boat. Wow, that sounds fair. Wait, no it doesn't. Why don't you ask the 4.9's builders if they think a 140 lb cat-rig skipper has an overall advantage? They'll ask you if you're crazy ;-)

4. "I Why would one do so with the mast...I don’t think that argument holds any water."

Answer: You're exactly right, they won't. The performance increase wouldn't justify it. They'll just get fed up with getting beaten by a boatlength or two to the windward mark, even when they are equal to the other skipper, and go back to racing one-design. That was my point.

5. Regarding the development aspect... Stewart is building a moth-hulled boat, which is legal to race alongside a T4.9. You're telling me that limiting his mast height to 8.5 vs. 9 meters makes these one-design? Let's keep to the big picture here: We're limiting POWER, not overall design. Let's be fair here. I mean, if you really want an "open" class, why have a sail area limit or a mast height limit or a width limit? My point is merely that mast height = power, and you'll run off your base class if you don't limit it.

Again, I understand where you're coming from, and it's an exciting perspective. But I'm concerned about the growth of the class.

Thanks for you input,

Michael Coffman

Hi Michael



I agree with you that it nice to discuss these ideas without name-calling…but I think it has more to do with the integrity of the participants than the artificial restraints of the forum format. Even on the open forum the two of us could exchange ideas without letting our emotions get the best of us. I have meaningful debates on other internet forums on a regular basis…and I would like to think you do to…facts and logic are thrown out the window the first time either party makes a personal attack…at which point the discussion becomes worthless



If we chose to “flair up” every time someone questioned our position, we would soon end up self-destructing. There must be unity in the class, even when individuals don’t see eye to eye.



We both have our point of views…we both have valid points…and now that we have had this chance to discuss it…I am much more aware or your position, and you are of mine…hopefully this has given other Class members food for thought on both sides of the table…So that, what ever decisions are made, will be in the best interest of the F-16HP class…in the US, Europe, and Australia.



In closing…I would like to say it would be wise of us to seek council from our brothers/sisters in Australia when it comes to issues like this…they seem…no they are… way ahead of the US in many aspects of sailing. They have already been there…done that…and could probably help us avoid a lot of the traps lying in wait to snare a new class such as our own…I would be very curious as to Phil’s comments concerning this issue…



To many, my comments in these last few posts may make me appear to be over reacting…but from my perspective…decisions like these, early on, will set us on a course that will either nurture this class into a world wide phenomenon or snuff the life out of it. We are at another fork in the road, which path are we going to choose?

It has much larger ramifications than how it effects you and I personally…

Just remember "if you do things the way you have always done them, you will get the results you have always got in the past”.



Looking at the long list of boats on the “dead boat society roster” we might want to stay on our more creative course, because whatever they tried didn’t work. These are serious issues…we need vote for what is best for the class.





Thank you for letting me present my perspective…



Bob Hall

Michael

The advantage would be yours in 1-7 knots if you had a 9- meter mast up. I have to agree with Bob: "The thing that attracted me to the F-16HP in the first place was the freedom of rules…or maybe better stated…a minimum of rules, which allowed for a tremendous amount of experimentation while still keeping the perimeters tight enough to insure fair competition." A Taipan 4.9 with a 9-meter mast (Big Rig) option would make the boat even more versatile.

Strict Rules are for One-Design Boats.



Mike Hagan

PS. Wouter, Kirt, Michael, & Bob thanks for all information and Discussions.

I thought the idea was the mast restriction not a reduced sail area as well? Or Am I mistaken?



The 4.9 as does the Stealth 16 have already been grandfathered as I recall.. They have some aspects that are already beyond the F16 rules (again from memory larger sail area?)..



If a T4.9 skipper bought a new mast to the 9 meter length would mean the boat couldnt be a T4.9 and thus wouldnt be grandfathered!! One cant have it both way otherwise W's Typhoon (?) would be a grandfathered T4.9?.. This means all aspects of the boat would have to measure in and thus a decrease in available sail area.. Reality check here.. So you go up in height but lose sail area..



Finally since the Bim 16 is also grandfathered any new boats built by Bim would always be allowed to have 9 meter rigs.. Unless we are now deregistering the BIM as grandfathered boat?



Lets say I register my thingy as a F16 would it be grandfathered? hence my question to W..



gues Im just old & grumpy

I'm happy to see the discussion develop and I'm sure that both Micheal and Seeker are passionate about their case without being personal although the wording used seems to fire up. Please guys, don't introduce more fire in the wording then is already present.



On the topic and without stating my own opinion.



Micheal the taller the mast the less sail area is allow in the mainsail. Example a 9 mtr. mast with a mainsail of 8,5 mtr. luff length would only be allowed some 14,32 sq. mtr. of mainsail area this in relation to 14,85 sq. mtr. on a 8,5 mtr. tall mast like the Taipan 4.9 has. Surely the point in the A-cat class is that the mainsail area of an A-cat stays the same independent of the length of the mast. Clearly the same area on a taller mast is better. But how about the current rule that gives sailors a proportionate reduction in area when they opt for more luff length ? The same applies to the jibs. Under current F16 rules getting a taller mast is not likely to increase sailpower, although it will increase heeling moment. This point may he caused all builder to limit themselfs to 8,5 mtr. anyway.



Seeker, With respect to minimum weight. Either 5 kg's is singnificant or it isn't. In the first case ; making sure that the current boats are competitive is of major importance to strenghen the class before F18 dominates all. Also especially to preserve the home build option, I would like to add.



Yes, timber boats can be lighter but with the added spi gear 105 kg's overall weight is hard enough to get down too.



In the second case it shouldn't make any difference wether the minimum is 100 or 105 as the performance isn't impacted much by this. it does however have the potential to lower costs by much. The weight increase gave a 20 seconds performance loss in theory, something that can easily be gained back by far more cost effective means like increasing jib sailarea. The last would keep up performance while keeping affordable boats. At least that is what some are argueing.



Again, I don't state personal opinions here I just want to introduce two points that are of interest and might bring about concensus in the class concerning the rules.



Please keep discussing, it is very entlighting, even to me and I came prepared. I also did not fully realized the emotion that some of these points are linked to.



Wouter

Stewart,



You are completely right that the topics are 6 fold, with one in the works, and none of them include any reductions in sailarea.



I would like to stress to all to stay close to the actual proposed changes which are :



Increasing minimum weight and reducing the difference between 1-up and 2-up.



Deleting the performance equalisation concept which uses spis and jibs of different sizes. This would give the F16 class one maximum area for either the mainsail and spi and a maximum overall sailare that includes the jib.



Lowering the mast height to 8,5 mtr.



Rewording the spi rule and rule that all spi boom must be 3,5 mtr. and not something ranging form 3,48 to 3,52 depending on the parameters of each individual design



Redefining the way a spi area is calculated without actually changing the rule. The end result will remain the same.



Having underlined this I want to underline too that



There is no talk of reducing sailarea.



Indeed the grandfathered boats have been allowed several non-compliance points



We are not deregistering Bim as a design or builder, however Bim is the proces of redesigning their 16 footer which may have different parameters from their current 16 foot design



And stewart your thingy will remain a F16 design.



Wouter

You've said :"Stealth had the opportunity to design its boat to optimize the F-16HP rules and it chose to go with the 8.5-meter mast…why not let the other Designer/builders/manufactures have the same freedom to design? Taipan and Stealth may be the only ones currently in productions but I was under the impression that others were in process of developing one as well."



I think I can give an answer on your the question raised :"why do this ?"



Well my personal opinion is that current rule set is adequate, but then again I understand the concept of rated sailarea or the reduction of sailarea proportional to using a taller mast.



I believe in the formula used as do Texel and ISAF handicap system whose numbers are largely confirmed by the statistical derived numbers of the PN system.



The problem may therefor not be physics but rather the perception of the rules. Even on this forum with the current members this point of area for length was lost. This may show that the current flexibility in mast length may be very hard to explain to not fully involved people with a good grasp of the rule set. And this will undoutably impact on their perception of the class.



The class however is very dependent on the perception of newcomers that the rules are fair; this despite the fact wether the really are or not.



Micheal made the case with referring to the A-cat class. He overlooked the area for height rule, so the A-class case can't simply be used as proof. But and a big but too. Micheal shows how newcomers or less informed members will look at the rules. Many may understand limits on mastheight but far less people may see the connection between height and area in the F16 rules and will thus see the 9 mtr. mast trend in teh A-class as applicable to the F16 class.



We currently have the opportunity to make a decision in this issue without impacting on anybody apart from myself and W.F. we will never have this opportunity again in the future.



I don't have the answer myself and am still weighing the options. But the weighting should be done taken the preception of people into account and not just the physics.



A very important point I think.



Wouter

Wouter and friends



I hope my comments were not viewed as inflammatory…they were not meant to be. I was under the impression that Michael and I were having a very civil discussion…especially considering we have such varied points of view. We even complemented each other for our focus on the issues instead of name-calling or other personal attacks. I would go so far as to say, compared to the all out wars I have seen on the open forum, Michael and I come off looking like the very best of buds…LOL…and I am sure we will confirm that, the first opportunity we have to sail together…No one here can tell me that they never had a difference of opinion with their friends…LOL…I would hope that we could all consider each other friends….



As far as the Sail size/mast height interplay and the misunderstanding of it…it seems to me that something like this will always be present in a Class called High Performance.

I was under the impression that this was suppose to offer sailors a chance at a truly advanced sailing platform in a size that had been ignored…one that offered more affordability and versatility while keeping the performance second to none. Was that the original intent? Or am I mistaken?



Since these misunderstandings will always be with us in one form or another, are we to simplify or educate? I like to think all of us here are capable of understanding the rules as they are laid out, assuming we take the time to read them. In conjunction with open, meaningful discussions, we can deal with any ambiguity, and keep almost every one happy and on the same page.



If you are going to worry about a misunderstanding about the mast height…how do you explain allowing the differences in grand fathered boats, differences in beam…Carbon VS Aluminum masts…and a host of other design factors? There is always going to be some one who doesn’t understand something…Are we going to be a fresh new High Performance class? A clone of the Taipan 4.9 one design rules? Or are we going to be moving towards the simplest platform that everyone can supposedly understand? This is the first step in deciding…



This is one of the reasons I stated in a former post that this could be a cross roads for the class…At this point we are plotting our future course…Are we truly striving to be High Performance?…If that is our goal than we must acknowledge that High Performance often comes with a perceived increased level of complexity, if not in application…at least in concept… it’s the Nature of the Beast…



Thank you all, for letting me share my point of view…I wish more of our class would share their perspective so we can see if we all have the same vision of what the F-16HP class is destined to be…



Bob Hall

Wouter,

Mate I would have no challenge with lowering the mast height IF all boats were forced into being FULLY compliant.. All boats would need to be measured into the rules in all aspects.. I cant see the T4.9ers accepting a redesign to race in the F16 class can you?



Changing rules because we forget some of the grandfathering isnt a real reason in my opinion..

If I decide to order a new Bim 16 in 5 years time then the boat would slide in under the grandfather clause.. "The its only yourself and WF is now strictly correct surely.."



getting older and grumpier by the day...

Folks,



It is encouraging to see spirited debate presented in such a respectful manner.



Last night I printed out all the comments and the printout comes to nearly 20 pages.



I openned a bottle of Bundy(rum) and sat down to read ....and consider.

Now that I have had a night to sleep on the information contained I would like to make comment.



Although I have always and will always make my own boats, I can't get past the fact that without the participation of manufacturers the fragile catamaran scene can't support our class.



Their participation is the key to success. They must be able to produce a product that not only fits into a market need it must also be affordable to the prospective purchasers.



We can build, tinker and develop, but without the big guys it's a bit like playing football by yourself.



I think Bob is right, we are at a cross-roads. My perspective regarding the Cross-Roads may be a little different. The choice seems to me to be between being a small group of homebuilders or an internationally recognised class?

I think it would be in all our long term interest to take a broader veiw of what we need in order

to attact people to the class. We need to attract both SAILORS and MANUFACTURERS. That is what will make the class strong.



I see the F16 class as being a limited development class.



What we are about is setting the parameters upon which the development will be based.

These parameters need to be set at a level that can be reliabley achieved by a good quality manufacturer. Set the parameters too liberally and the class looses its excitment value set them too tight and it develops a repuation of fragility and unreliability. The manufacturer must be able to produce and make a profit and the purchaser must have confidence in the product to purchase it.



The issues as I see them are:

(1) Performance Equalisation

(2) Total Weight of the Rigged Boat

(3) Height of the mast





(1) Perforamnce Equalisation:-

So far nothing much has been said on this and hopefully this means everyone is happy that we scrap performance equalisation.

The good ol' KISS principle. Love it.







(2) Total weight of the boat.

I think this is the most important issue of all.



There are over 200 Taipan 4.9s out there racing and many of them have been doing this for more than 10 years. (To disregard this would be foolish.)

The manufacturers of the Taipan are a leading A class manufacturer and know their business when it comes to building lightweight boats. They build the boat as light as they believe they can reliablty produce a high performance 16ft SLOOP rigged cat. Up until 4 years ago the min weight for the boat was 105, 3kg more than the current 102kg. If the boat could have been reliably and consistently produced lighter I believe it would. The F16 is not to be a clone of the Taipan, but we as individuals are doing little more than guessing when we advocate boat weights unless we consider the extensively trialled Taipan 4.9 in our arguments.



One could argue that the weight of such a boat can be brought down by the use of carbon mast and beams.

I agree with this, but at what price?



I was a strong advocate of prohibiting carbon masts during the lengthy debate 12 months back. My concern was and still is the cost. If you keep the min weight low it is my considered opinion that the carbon mast becomes mandatory to be competative.



I am currently building a 4.9 specifically to sail under F16 rules and have from the onset been very careful with everything that has gone into my hulls. Nothing went in without being weighed and where I considered something was not essential it was left out. The project is still in progress but I am confident that I won't be able to make the current min F16 weight. In reality, for me, this is not a problem because I will be sailing against other 4.9s with kites. Now if things really got going here it would only take one person to get a carbon mast, spurred on by the desire to lower total weight because he could, and everyone else would be either forced out of the class or take the $3000 expense of the mast.



How many people out there have a lazy 3 grand?



What do you think would happen to the class?



Given the current cost of the carbon mast, and the fact that it is allowed, we should set a weight where the use of a carbon mast is NOT mandatory to meet the min weight. If/when the carbon mast price comes down to a reasonable level we could then revisit the min weight.



So the question is what is a reasonable weight?



When considering this I can't get over that the T4.9 platform has not been raced with a spinnaker anywhere near as extensively as I would like to see before being able to reliabley call the platform sound when using a kite. I would hate to see the min weight go below the sloop rig proven 102kg plus the weight of the kite kit.



I realise that is more than the current proposal and consider the current proposal as a proposal for the fearless. Not really something you can build a long lasting class on.



Now when considering the weight of the kite kit I would like to see it include a snuffer.

I think for the class to have a wide appeal in its target market the snuffer is essential.



Sure you may think you can lower a kite just as quick by hand into a bag, but riddle me this,

why don't all the top Tornado Sailors lower the kite by hand into a bag.

Those guys put much more time into there training than any of us are likely to and they analyse what they do to the nth degree so their training has intensive focus.



I think there is still a lot of work to be done before a decent snuffer is developed and would like to see the work continue. I think moving the kite kit outside the rules for a period of at least two years would be a good move.



Alternatively set a value (after weighing some kite kits with snuffers) and review this value alone

in two years time.



I propose the minimum weight be 102kg, this weight excludes the kite kit.



If , for rating porposes, it is essential to have a total weight it should be 102kg plus the weight of the kite kit with snuffer.

This weight is yet to be determined. Need each type with a snuffer weighed and then take the average and, as I said, review this weight ALONE in two years time.



(3)Mast Height.

From memory the primary reason 9 metres was set at a max height was because we wanted to include the BIM16. Not because we thought it was a good height.

Personally I think 9m is too high for a 16ft platform.



If Bim have reduced the height of the mast I would really like to know why.



If I was going to vote it would be for the 8.5m mast but if that vote failed to get up I would not be concerned.



The issue of setting the right weight is far more important.



I think there is a lot of development potential within the right parameters, hulls, rig and snuffer. Any doubts just look at what's been happenning in the A class ranks and they only have one sail.



Just the way I see it.





Regards,

Phill

Mike H,

You said:

The advantage would be yours in 1-7 knots if you had a 9- meter mast up.

Answer: Of course it would... that's what I'm trying to avoid... the necessity of multiple masts. You missed the point, which was based on one mast per boat. Can you honestly say that you think my light weight (remember, this is with spinakers, so upwind only... the spin. pretty much evens stuff out downwind) is more of an advantage than a liability? Come on, now, we've done enough boat for boat... If I had only a 9meter mast, I'd get killed by heavier people even quicker. Yes, of course, we could all buy 5 masts and sails like you have for windsurfing. But at that price, you'll have bullets every time. You'll be the only one playing that game.



You said: "Strict Rules are for One-Design Boats. " Sure... so why have any mast height restriction? Why have a beam restriction? Why have a weight restriction?

THE MAST HEIGHT RULE IS ALREADY IN PLACE! Everybody seems to be missing this...

WE ARE NOT VOTING ON WHETHER THIS "STRICT RULE" WILL BE PUT IN PLACE!

All that we are voting on is what the limit will be. This is a Formula class, modeled on the F18. It is not a pure development class like the 18square was. The F18's restrictions are far greater than ours. If it becomes a pure development class, then anyone with a "stock" boat is SOL.

Answer me this: which is the more popular class...F18 or 18square? Think solid-wing masts, guys.

Thanks,

Michael Coffman

T4.9#32

P.S.

Mike - I thought the thing that attracted you to the boat was having a lightweight boat that you and your wife could race without being overpowered? That is what we're talking about. Limiting the power available so that the sailors most attracted to this class (couples/younger people/lightweights) don't get hammered every time the seabreeze fills in at more than 9.5 kts. It's unwise to try to extend the ideal crew weight for normal seabreeze conditions above 320 (sloop) and 180 (cat). At this point, you've eliminated a large # of potential sailors, by competing directly with the A-class and F18 class. You're not making more people competetive. You're making a few people who already have other classes available faster, and losing your base "couples" classes, the stock stealth and stock T4.9.

Michael C

I have missed the meaning of Formula, thinking that this was more of an open class. I think you are on the right track I definitely do not want to have to tote around extra masts for the F16HP.

Mike221

PS. It's 7-masts, 12 sails, 6 boards.

Hi Michael



With all do respect, please go back to Wouters post about the physics of the mast height/sail relationship and re-read it (heading is “New Designs” posted on 9/21/02 3:16pm). Or ask him to explain it in different terms if you find it ambiguous. Or try this… longer mast=smaller sq/mt (or sq/ft) of sail allowed…shorter mast=larger sq/mt (or sq/ft) of sail allowed. You can’t have a taller mast AND have the same amount of sq/mt (or sq/ft) of sail as those using a smaller mast…it’s against the CURRENT RULES.



Here is the explanation directly from the F-16HP Web site :



"To avoid confusion we underline here that RATED sailarea is NOT equal to ACTUAL sailarea.

Here are just three examples, more combinations are possible :



-1- 14,51 sq. mtr. actual area with a 8,3 mtr luff length = 13,00 sq. mtr rated area

-2- 14,85 sq. mtr. actual area with a 8,0 mtr luff length = 13,00 sq. mtr rated area

-3- 15,26 sq. mtr. actual area with a 7,7 mtr luff length = 13,00 sq. mtr rated area



This way the positive effect of more sail area is corrected by the negative effect of a shorter luff length.This approach limits actually produced sail power more accurately than can be done by just limiting a sail surface area.It also permanently fixes the F16HP Texel handicap rating to the Formula 18 rating."





You can not make any parallels with wind surfing racing…where a participant can choose from any variety of Sail shapes, sizes, mast lengths, stiffness, etc…you are comparing apples and oranges…



With the rules, the way they are right now…you could bring 20 masts with you to a race and it would change nothing but your heeling moment. There is no advantage…again longer mast/smaller sail…. shorter mast/larger sail…. do you see what I mean? The rule was designed to eliminate any advantage a taller mast might have…to equal the playing field…they won’t be able to get “more power” than you have…



From your responses it is obvious that you have a strong personal stake in keeping the F-16 HP platform in a configuration that allow you to sail competitively at your current weight. It is also obvious that you feel that lighter crews have little chance of success in the F-18, F-18HT, A-class etc. I understand your concern, and I agree that everyone needs a field of play and the F-16HP is probably the best one to allow this to come down the pike in a long time…I am not against you on this…I am not your enemy…all I saying is you have nothing to fear by leaving the 9 meter mast height…it is not going to give anyone an advantage over you…if they opt for the taller mast they have to take a hit on sail area…I don’t know any way to make this point clearer…



Michael H. you would not have to go out and buy another mast/sail combination to stay competitive…it is just a misunderstanding of the rules that are already in place…again go reread Wouters post (“New Designs” posted 9/21/02 3:16pm). Or go to the F-16HP web site and read the rules there.



Phill thank you for your comments…I have great respect for your insight …of all involved, you seem to be able to detach yourself from any particular boat and give an unbiased opinion…I say that with full knowledge that we seems to differ here as to what route to take…



Bob Hall

Bob,

No worries, man... I've said my piece, made the best arguments I could, and it's up to the "real people" (the ones not firmly on one side or the other) to decide.

Here's my version of a wrapup:

I really do understand what you're saying about rated sail area...I just think that, if you really believed that there was "no advantage" to a taller mast, you wouldn't want the option to have one ;-)

Personally, I think that higher aspect, in moderate winds, with the right weight, might be a hair faster upwind. I just don't think it's enough to warrant the psychological impact it has on the class.

Good luck, and I'll still race ya' boat for boat even if you do have a dang 9 meter mast.

Michael Coffman

T4.9#32

P.S.

Thanks - this was the best discussion I've had in a long time.

Hi Michael



I feel the same way as you…as much as I have enjoyed discussing this with you …I too feel like I have laid out my best presentation of the facts and now look forward to having other class member’s share their opinions.



I am so glade that we can discuss these things as friends, exchange ideas, and open up ourselves to different perspectives. Thank you for opening my eyes to the fact that there really is no other cat class that can provide the lighter crews such a high performance venue, without starting off at a disadvantage to heavier crews…it one of those things you know in the back of your mind…but until some one calls your attention to the situation…it doesn’t get the consideration it deserves…



Hopefully in our discourse we touched on questions that other members had, but didn’t verbalize. Maybe it helped take some of the ambiguity out of the choices that the class is about to vote on? I hope so…



Michael I look forward to meeting you in person sometime in the future, I am sure we will “hit it off” immediately…after all this communication back and forth I already feel like I have known you for years…LOL



My version of the wrap up: One word Freedom…the rules that are already in place (in regard to weight and mast length) are rigid enough to promote fair competition…but also offer enough flexibility for manufactures and home builders alike to keep finding new pieces to the performance puzzle…the kind of things that keep cat sailing exciting…The kind of thing that keeps one class relevant while another classes stagnates and slowly fades into the sunset. The original rules of overall maximum weight and mast length were carefully considered at the very beginning, they are well thought out, and it is worthy of our time to not only look at the original rules…but to revisit the reasoning that went into choosing them before we rush to change some very core issues. As it is often said “ your first choice is often your best choice”.



I would like to thank, Wouter, Kirt, and Phill for there tireless work on behalf of the F-16HP class, and the foresight they had to enable the participants to share opinions, facts, ideas, and visions relevant to this new Phenomenon. What an awesome undertaking!



Bob Hall

Hi all:



We at Australian High Performance Catamarans have been following the discussion going on with great interest.



A. Weight Limit:

The weight limits need to be such that make the boats affordable. We know we could build F16 for well below the current weight restriction (Our 18 ft A-Classes are less than 72 kgs all up) however, how many of you will be willing to pay the extra for a superlight boat?



The Taipan weight limits were not arbitrary figures decided on overnight. These weights were discussed over a number of years, and after many sailors had built their own boats. It is a weight that is achievable using techniques available to the average back yard handy man. It is a weight achievable without going to the expense of carbon fibre masts, booms or beams.



Therefore, we would like to see one of the following weight restrictions accepted:

1: Weighing without spinnaker setups: 103kgs for the sloop & 98 kgs for the Uni.

2: Weighing with spinnaker: 110 kgs for the sloop, 105 kgs for the Uni



B. Lowering the mast height:

Please consider the structural integrity of the masts. Spinnaker setups place an incredible load on the top of the masts, and regularly “pull the tops” of masts. 8.5m is a length that has been used on the Stealth and the Taipan because it is a length that allows for decent rig without the fear of losing a mast everytime you fly the spinnaker.



The Inter 17’s here is Australia were first manufactured with a 9m mast. They had so many of these “collapse” that they have now gone back to the 8.5 m mast.



Let’s learn from those who have gone before us… BIGGER definitely is not BETTER when it comes to masts.



C. Deleting the Performance Equalisers – YES PLEASE!!

We have been watching how the weight of crews effects the Taipan’s performance for some years. Elliot Tonks study sums it up perfectly. Lets keep the rules simple.



Bye for now,

Helen Sharrock

(CEO of AHPC)

Now that the other have had their say; I would like to present my own opinion on the subject. Ofcourse I couldn't earlier as that could be regarded as influencing the discussion as a chairman of the class. Now the potential of that is gone as the discussion is winding down.



I will limit my opinion to mast height for now as the discussion on minimum weight is just starting as well as the other topics.



Mast height



Let me start out that I believe that the current rules are adequate in the sense that they are self limiting and look like to converge to 8,5 mtr. masts on their account. Precisely the intent we had 12 months ago when fixing the current rule set.



Helens comment about the Australian Inter-17 (the original) also supports this.



Just like Phill I'm not at all concerned that a 9 mtr. mast has an advantage over the others especially with the rule that only one suit of sails can be used per regatta. Think off it like this; even when despite the rated sailarea rule a taller mast is advantagious in the truelly light laminair winds than it would almost certainly be equally disadvantagious in the stronger turbulent winds of the afternoon or the next day. In short, the expected gain, if any, is so low that it will not hold up against the extra costs in doing so.



So for a person with the background knowledge and grip on the rules as Phill and I have there is no worry.



However Micheal has brought up a good point which I have found myself to be true to. We all, members of the first hour , remember the early discussions and the arguments used. We understand after considerable discussion how the rules interact and work and how it is nearly impossible to beat them. However there is absolutely no garantee that new members will so to.



The current rule requires some basis of technological thinking where it is understood that amount of driving force isn't proportional to actual sailare; where it is understood that other parameters are present too. Just yesterday on the beach at a regatta I found that a majority of people do every much equate sailpower (or rather speed) with actual sailarea.



Personally I think that perception is more relevant in this case than truth. Why ? Because the class is only made aware of new members when they have decided to contact us and are looking for a new boat or have just bought one. That means NOT when they are checking out the class and its rules via websites and articles. We, as a class, must therefore convince the newcomers at that early stage when we can't explain the rated sailarea rule limiting quality to the extend that it may well require. And even if we did make alot of webarticles on our website this will still not garantee that the reader is convinced.



The point with lowering the mastheight to 8,5 mtr. is there is no discussion possible. The reader is most likely to think : All have the same mastlength and it is limited to that size. It is rather tall and therefor effecient and thus fast. Period.



I found in my working life that sometimes avoiding a discussion is better than having one. EVEN if you are succesful in convincing the other side in the end. And we all know how much I enjoy a good discussion.



So concluding this paragraph I think that avoiding the discussion and explainantion all together by lowering the mast to 8,5 mtr. (excluding a mast crane) is the preferred way to go, despite the fact that I trully believe in the effectiveness of the current rule. Psychology wins over physics in this respect.







Second point made with respect to the mast height which I think is very relevant is the following. Current crews of below 150 kg's don;t have a viable race class at this moment. Ofcourse the H16 is still going strong and is catering for these people but it is becomming increasingly clear to me that this class is slowing down and that good sailors are opting for modern designs with gennakers; also the H16 doesn't appeal to the younger generation that have seen F18's and modern looking gennaker skiffs like the 29-er and 49-er.



The F18 was intended to take up these sailors as the heavier ones and have the performance equalisation rule to make that fair. However, some feel that the F18 may be the most fair as it can be it still favors the heavier crews over the lighter ones. There is talk of abandonning the two sizes of jib in the F18 rule. All in all, the F18 class will be dominated by heavier and often male-male crews instead of the rest of the sailing world which are male-female crews, all female crews and parent-teenager crews.



How does this related to out class ? Well, a builder has to decide what platform to optimize. A platform with a 9 mtr. mast will be optimized differently than one with a 8,5 mtr. mast. Boom length will change, volume distribution will change, etc. Is is unlikely that a builder will design two F16 variants with tow different mast lengths. My fear is that to tap into the psychological perceived advantage of taller mast and hit the lighter crews once again with alot of heeling moment. Or even worse that the potential newcomers wil few the possibility of 9 mtr. mast as another advantage to heavier crews which excludes them again. Especially since the same mast heigh is used in the F18 class where they are disadvantaged too !



On the other I'm sure that when the same crews look at the shorter mast of 8,5 mtr. they will feel more assured that this class is their class where the roles have reversed. In this class (F16) the heavier crews have a very good change but the perceived advantage remains with the sub 150 kg's. In this respect it is the perfect counterpart of the F18. This way we'll have a verys strong selling argument.



My 3rd consideration is the singlehander option. I feel that with more sailarea than an A-cat on a similar 9 mtr. mast singlehanders will overlook the extra width and platform weight and consider this class a very challanging singlehander. We know that this is not the case, it may be challanging but it was also found to be well in the comfortable zone for relatively inexperienced crews. No matter what some A-cat sailors say, the A-cat is perceived as a tippy and extreme boat by the target group we are aiming for.



Reason 3. it is regarded to be optimal at this 8,5 length anyway or is extremely close to the optimal. Because at this time all the boats have 8,5 mtr. masts except 2 one-offs. And because it would prevent investments in a sector (mastheight) without merit and which could be better spend in other area's like saildesign and snuffersystems.





So my personal opinion in this matter is that for reasons of perception of fairness and attractiveness of the singlehander option in the minds of the newcomers we are wise to limit the mast height to 8,5 mtr.(excluding mastfoot and mast crane) and thus pevent any discussion or required explaining that we can never fully drive home.



And we be wise to divert development efforts and money to more promising aspects of the class like sail design and snuffersystems.



I do choose to keep the rated sailarea rule to equal out the 8,5 mtr. rigs and to help us in the rating systems.



Wouter

The vote will open on this topic with a week time. So if there is anything else to add than do it now. Else the members have a few days to meditate on the issue.



Wouter

Guys 'n Girl lets continue weight discussion here. Otherwise the arguments will be spread over the forumboard and very difficult to look up later when the vote is put on.



As the discussion seems to partially to focus on the gennaker gear I would like to present the following link as background information.



http://www.geocities.com/f16hpclass/Tech_weight_and_cost_spi_setup.html



Also an update :



I just weight new (on-off) ratchet blocks+shackles of a lesser known and cheaper brand and they came out at 80 grams each. This in comparison to the 156 gram each of the ronstan blocks I used on my P18. A total gain of about 150 grams over two blocks. With the smaller blocks for the halyards the gain will be 200 grams. Ergo the option listed as inexpensive homebuild option with trampoline bag comes out at 4,7 kg's for the whole package.



I have my own comments on minimum weight but I will post them after the others have had their say, just like as was done in the mast height thread.



Wouter

I have enjoyed reading all the discussions on the various rules and would like to air my views.



Mast Height: 8.5m sounds good to me. Helen's post sealed this one for me.



Min. Weight.: Uni 98kg, Sloop 103. These weights should not include the weight of the Kite and running gear associted with the kite. If we set a minimum weight for the kite we run the risk of not being able to use a excellent but very lightweight system. I suggest that the weight of the kite and its running gear be unrestricted.



No performance equalisation please.



Rob.

Helen,

Am I missing something here....

The F16 has a maximum hoist height of 7.5 meters..

It would thus appear the tip presure is thus limited...



Wouter your forgetting the Bim 16 is a grandfathered boat and any new ones will be allowed a 9 meter rig..



finally as I see your agruments and I am usually wrong.. You arguing its too difficult to educate new owners as to the formulae rules? If this is the real case then perhaps we should restrict the rules further.. perhaps to a one design rig..



Stewart

Several parties have introduced argument in favour and against increasing the minimum weight; some have even suggested an alternative modification.



It seems wise to redefine the proposal.



The 3 issues at hand are :



-1- Raising the minimum weight by an X amount to stay affordable, durable, homebuildable, in business or competitive. The amount X or the wording is now open for discussion as that seems to be of interest to.



With the introduction of the above point I would like add that with increasing weight to much the equality under Texel to the F18 class may fall.



-2- The second issue is the gap between minimum 1-up and minimum 2-up weight. This is proposed to be decreased from 5 kg's to 3 kg's (original proposal was to lower it down to 2 kg's but a small concession was given on this already)



-3- A new, 3rd, proposal was introduced and picked up by Phill, Helen and Berthos. This is to stimulate snuffer development and take out the uncertainty of what a good snuffer may look like and weight. Obviously the development in this field has only just started and predictions about weight are difficult at best.



They proposed to set the minimum sloop weight without all the gennaker gear for now and let the spi gears develop for a time. After the development has produced a good working setup we can modifiy the minimum weight rule to the minimum weight of the sloop + the weight of a spi gear.



Please lets have discussions on these three issues.



Wouter

As this topic seems to cause the least discussion and seems to be settled in the minds of many already I propose to start the voting on this issue.









This poll will run for 7 days.



Wouter

I wish to amend my post above to have the same weights listed as the Taipan class rules ie. 97 and 102kg. I made an error listing the other weights.



I would also like to add this to the same discussion.



There is a slight problem with my proposition that the min. weight doesn't include the weight of the spinnaker. The problem is that there are parts of the spinnaker gear which are more or less permanent fixtures to the boat. The total weight is small for these items but need to be taken into account. There also may be an attempt to abuse the rules by making more items than neccessary permenantly fixed to the boat to bring it above minimum weight. A new rule could include something along the lines of:



"Those parts of the equipment needed to operate the spinnaker and which are permanently fixed to the boat shall be kept to a minimum. Parts that must be detached when weighing are: the spinnaker pole in its complete length, pole stays, snuffing device, halyard, sheets, sheet blocks, trampoline bag. A part is to be considered "permanently fixed" when it is riveted, screwed, bolted, glued or welded to a part of the boat which does not belong to the spinnaker equipment."



Rob

Up till now the voting has been exclusively on the honour system and that worked well. Thanks to all you F16 enthousiasts of the first hour who always worked towards a concensus despite the differences. I much appreciate this aspect of the class.



However, lately some have inquired about the control on the voting and wether it is possible to vote more times than one and other voting garantees. Apparently this is of concern of some people.



Although the last votes all checked out when I link the outcome to personal e-mails I have received I feel that a more secure voting system is required now that the F16 class is expanding and some of us are beginning to question the dependence of the current system.



I want to reassure th class that the voting rules will not change the way the class handles issues of mutual concern ; it will just make the result verifiable and therefor give a more dependable meaning to the outcomes. I've been very honoured by the old voting system and the self governing of it and I'm want to stay as close to that setup as possible.



I will also take great care not to affect to current ease of voting in the new system.



The system will be ready after I consulted with all the class head in the various areas.



The polls on sensitive issues like mastheight and minimum weight will be delayed till the modified voting system is ready.



With kind regards,



Wouter



Chairman Formula 16 class

Poll is Closed ! Result is 13 to 0 in favour of abandonning the Performance Equalisation rule.



Wouter