Formula class rules yearly review ! READ !

Dear members,

Again a year has passed and we are back at our yearly review of the class rules.

Of course two issues have already been handled in May/June 2004 because of their pressing nature. So I don't expect many proposals to pop up at this review. However if you do have any suggestions or proposals then please enter them. Either in private to F16class@xs4all.nl or publically via a reply to this post.

Remember any proposal must be supported by a write-up that explains the reasons for the given proposals as well as a discussion of what the effects of not acting could be. Please also note that the proposals must make sense. I mean simply stating that the mast lengths should be lengthened to 9 mtr is non-sensical as all current F16's have 8.5 mtr masts and none of the F16 builders wants to have 9 mtr mast on their boats (expressed in writing to me). You may think that 9 mtr masts are an improvement personally but this is not the same being an improvement to the Formula 16 setup as a class.

So where do you guys see a problem in the F16 rules or see room to improve on them ?

With kind regards,

Wouter Hijink

Chairman Formula 16 class

It is time to end the window in which proposals for modification or amendment of the Formula 16 class rules can be entered.

It seems that we are all very happy with current class rules setup and I must say that I largely agree with that. There is however one point that I would like to make more work off.

Either removing the mast tip weight rule completely or reducing its tip weight limit.

Truth be said and I ask for pardon with the parties who still feel for the current rule.


Reasons for it :

-1- The current tipweight appears not to serve the purpose it was intended to serve. The Superwing Alu masts appear not to have a noticeable disadvantage relative to carbon mast in the way of moment of enertia's.

-2- The current tipweight appears to be too high for modern carbon masts. I was asked by a carbon mast maker to lower the tip weight to a more reasonable weight. Two homebuilder builders have indicated that they had to add to much weight to the mast to get it up to F16 compliance, thus completely losing the optimal feel of the masts. It serves no purpose to hit carbon masts this hard.

-3- It seems to go against the spirit of the F16 rules to have this rule in the first place and then set it at the value at which it is now. I have no serious ground on which to base the assumption that a lower tipweight or even the full deletion of the rule would result in an unfair performance gain. Many people believe that an unfair advantage is present but the numbers simply don't support it to that extend.

-4- The F16 class kept its side of the negociations of late 2002, but a significant part of the other side simply disappeared after having campaigned for the inclusion of the rule. The rule was intended to make way for their inclusion in the F16 at a garanteed competitive level. There inclusion has been, well, remarkably uninspiring.

-5- With the introduction of the Tornado Carbon mast and the introduction of the Nacra I17R (F17) with carbon mast to Europe it will be wise that the F16 allows some extra flexibility with regard to carbon masts. We need to retain our attractiveness to these boats. It will also improve our standing to A-cat designs.

-6- It is quite possible that carbon masts are going to drop in price. Of course Stealth is already offering these at much lower prices than the competition and there are signs that other suppliers are going to surface that will do so too. The price of carbon is close to that of other fibres so that is not an issue anymore. Currently we can buy a full carbon hull cheaper than we can buy a carbon mast, this is weird to say the least. The well known names in carbon mast land do make excellent masts but also ask astronomical prices for them. There is movement in this field and I hope the F16 class will ride this way as a frontrunner in this.

-7- It could never be said at the time but a least halve of the reasons to include the tipweight rule was political of nature. The political nature of the situation has changed and it appears that the only effect of the rule was to make the F16 rules less optimal than we wished them to be.



I ran some numbers on the current situation and this is what came up :

AHPC Superwing (Taipan and Blade designs) tipweight = 100 %
F18 Typical tipweight (2 kg /mtr mast sections) = 121 %
F16 Current min tipweight (1.33 kg/mtr mast section) = 86 %
A-cat tip weight (0.9 kg /mtr mast section) = 63 %
Possible new F16 tipweight (1.1 kg .mtr mast section) = 73 %


However when we start looking at the bigger picture things start to change. Lets include the mastfittings and sails into comparison :

AHPC Superwing rig enertia = 100 %
F18 rig enertia = 134 %
F16 Current min rig enertia = 91 %
A-cat rig enertia = 83 %
Possible new F16 rig enertia = 82 %


Notice how we can get a more robustly constructed F16 mast to approximate the A-cat mast in the numbers ? This is despite the heavier F16 fittings and the heavier sails. The convergence is complete the result of the shorter mast length of the F16's. Mastlength is just such a dominant factor in these relations; weight per length isn't really.

However the picture improofs even more when we start looking at the full picture. With respect to dive recovery and oscillation the ratio between rig and platform is important. Think of it like this. All inertia in the rig is negative as that will exceggerate the dives and oscillation, but all enertia in the platform is good (positive) as that acts as a stable foot which increasing keeps the rig under control and limits diving and oscillations. It also allows the hull to punch better through the wave, BUT this is not of interest here. So lets look at the ratio's between rig and platforms


AHPC Superwing rig enertia = 100 % (double handed)
F18 rig enertia = 100 %
F16 Current min rig enertia = 91 %
Possible new F16 rig enertia = 82 %

So in doublehanded mode even the Superwing alu F16 rig is at least as good as the F18's. And the carbon masted rigs have come closer to the Superwing rig.


F16 solo Superwing = 100 %
A-cat rig enertia = 80 %
F16 current min = 91 %
F16 new rig = 82 %

In the solo case we have a very reasonably shot at being just as good as the A-cats which is very good indeed. The Superwing rig is only 18 % away. Now this may sound like alot but its translation in performance seems to be very small indeed.

I have personally sailed the Taipan F16 in different conditions during 2004 and I can honestly say that the platform doesn't seem to have any dive tendency at all. Nor did I at all feel like the rig was oscillation any more than the bare minimum. Since this summer I'm convinced that the superwing rig (alu) is already so lightweight that any gains linked to even less weight are all but neglectable. Afterall, how can a rig move about (or dive) even less than hardly at all ?

Lets not forget that Marstroms new Tornado Carbon mast with carbon spreaders and carbon this-n-that comes in at 15.5 kg overall weight. The AHPC aluminium superwing rigged mast comes in at 15.5 kg as well ! So who are we kidding here ? We are not talking about 20 kg FX-one rigged alu masts that are accidently of the same length as the F16 masts. Nor are we talking about 10 kg A-cat masts. What we are looking at are 15.5 kg Superwing alu masts or realistic 12.5 kg F16 carbon masts (5.5 kg tipweight). As you can see the alu and carbon rigs are already very close together in the F16 class, much closer than for example the I-17 alu and I-17R carbon rigs are. Actually a F16 sailor helped a I-17R sailor with raising his mast once and thought that hit Alu Taipan mast felt lighter. Considering that Marstroms Tornado mast of comparable length as the I-17R mast is only of the same weight as the Superwing rig makes this claim the more believable.

In short the Superwing rig is already at a advantage to its competition and already behave in such an optimal way that I truly think that any F16 carbon rig will be very hard to recognise as different let alone better beyond neglectable.

However, we're not done yet.

Because the above numbers give a better picture but I believe that there are addition comments that may proof to be the more important ones.

We all think carbon masts to be much better than alumimium and refer to the blistering performance of the A-cats as proof. The question is however how much of this obvious difference is related to the choice of material ?

We know for example how the wing masted Capricorn F18 made an impression on the other F18 still using teardrop shaped masts. When we look more closely we can also see that how all carbon masts are ALSO wingmast designs. There are non teardrop shaped carbon masts except for maybe the I-17R's. More and more I'm beginning to believe that the largest portion of the gains come from the wingmast crossection shape and less so from the choice of material. My own experiences with the Superwing rig last year have completely underlined this. The way the wingmast design behaves is key and that can be had in both alu and carbon.

Then we are still left with one more comparison. Both sailors and windsurfers claim that under certain conditions the carbon masts have better gust response. Quicker gust response. Carbon has a better weight to stiffness ratio than aluminum. This sounds very logical to me. Quicker to bend off in the beginning of the gust and quick to spring back at the end of the gust. However how much do F16's gain by this ? Or how badly are they affected by it.

Lets compare it to the A-cats.

Their masts are about 20 % longer above the hounds than F16's leading to rougly 72 % more enertia of the top. Their weight per mtr. is about 60 %. Their enertia is about 172 % * 60 % = 103.2 % = 103 % as that of the F16's. And carbon fibre laminate and alu have about the same stiffness coefficients of 75-80 GPa. Although it must be said that carbon laminate can be upgraded to 125 GPa (50 % more then alu), however nobody sails with the carbon equavalent of the stiffness of a telegraph pole. It is starting to become clear how close the two actually are, Must closer than simple enertia numbers of the mast suggest. The Superwing mast looks already to have equal enertia to stiffness ratio as a carbon A-cat mast. But the enertias of the tops are the same meaning that in the start of the gust both the alu superwing and the carbon A-cat mast drop away just as quickly. The carbon mast may still spring back quicker after the gust, but this is of importance because now that the enertia's of the tops are about the same the crossection of the alu mast can be entlarged to arrive at the stiffness that gives the alu mast exactly the same ratio of enertia to stiffness as any carbon a-cat mast. How can this be, simple answer really. A-cat masts are significantly longer and the 3rd order relationship impacts heavily on that. So yes alu A-cat mast will be inferiour to their carbon counterparts but shorter alu mast may well be not. Sure more luff length is a advangate in itself but as the as the F16 masts are limited in length the end result is that an Alu F16 mast can be made to closely mirror the gust response that is achieved on A-cats mast where higher technology is needed to do so..

This seems to be the theme with the F16;s. By going smaller we can achieve specs while using less high flying technology. Again I refer to the Tornado carbon mast of 15.5 kg and the F16 alu mast of 15.5 kg. Of course we all know that F16's weight in at 107 kg while the M20 weights in at 120 kg's (Texel measurement). Sure M20 is a more refined boat and much cooler because of its extensive use of high tech BUT I will feel no difference in lifting both masts and I'll still that driving the F16 over the sand takes less effort. When we compare the amount with which the hulls move relative to eachother the F16 wins again. It is often forgotten but dimension are very much part of designing an optimal boat as well.

So what is the point. Simple, there is nobody that claims that A-cats have an issue in dive recovery or oscillation and gustresponses of their carbon rigs. So why would we expect such things of the alu rigs of F16's when the numbers suggest we are close to comparable ? I think both designs are right up their near the point wether enough is enough. Sure we can get even BETTER results with F16 carbon masts but again how much gain can you expect when the basic version has no issues at all in these departments ?

I goes to far to get into the real detail here, but I serious expect the carbon masted F16's to be way more cool but not noticeably faster than the alu rigs. At least not enough to retain the mast tip rule.

There is still the reason of seaworthyness. I still see a real argument to prevent disposable masts or designs that are too lightly constructed and fail giving F16 a bad name as a whole.

Pieter saarberg once expressed he could build a good dependable F16 mast for 1.1 kg per meter. This is 200 grams per meter more than A-cat masts. If we run the numbers on that than we end up with a tipweight of 5.5 kg's ; 1 kg less than the current limit and 1 kg more than the modern A-cat rigs. And the numbers suggest we'll have an extremely good mast then.

I hope you forgive me for this post being a little bit poorly structured but I simply don't have the time to spend more effort on it.

I'm looking forward to your reactions.

Wouter

Hi all,

I would have to agree that the present tip weight is probably to high for carbon masts, after modifying a A class mast by gluing timber inside to strengthen the mast and increase weight. It was surprising how much needed to be added to get it near current weight and at this stage I still don't know if it is strong enough. So the current tip weight rule is questionable in it's ability to make masts strong as it doesn't preclude adding weight to a mast without strength.

Ultimately without making the rules more complex we realy can only rely on the sailors/makers of masts to make them strong enough to avoid breakages so they finish races. As to ensure increased weight of a mast leads to strength you realy need a balance test along with a mast weight. To complex for what F16 wants, leave this sort of rules for one design dinghies.

It may even be possible to do away with the tip weight and just have a total mast weight, although as this is no easier to measure we might stick with what we have. Either way I believe we should include in the rule that no correctors are allowed as this defeats the purpose of having the weight rule, being strength. Of course how to include this is is open to debate.

What is the tip weight of a carbon stealth mast?
From what I understand it is the only carbon mast currently being used on F16 in any numbers and I assume it is surviving. Surely it should be used as an example in this discussion.

In conclusion I would agree with the idea of reducing the tip weight but how far I am not sure, Wouters suggestion puts it alot lighter than alloy super wing, which would give the perception of a large advantage although I agree with him that it is not that great in reality. I have always used alloy masts on my sailboards and kept up with the carbon mast guy's. The gust response etc. is a very small percentage improvement.

I do think we should include in the weight rule.
That the mast is not allowed weight correctors. All materials included in the mast should be structual and be permanently fixed eg. glued or welded.

Looking forward to more discussion, we all love /hate rules.

Regards Gary.

While investigating the tip weight issue I can across some 2002 input data that in light of current knowlegde seemed weird.

Back at the time of introducing the tip-weight rule it was agreed among the parties that the we would set the minimum required tipweight at the level of the Stealth F16 carbon mast tipweight as they were produced. At the time it was believed that that tipweight was 6.5 kg. Somewhere a misunderstanding must have occured as the mast have a tipweight of 5.5 kg. I discover this when running some numbers, I contacted Stealth Marine and they remeasured their mast and come back with the 5.5 kg value.

It is my fault that I didn't caught up with this anomely earlier, for which my appologies. Actually I have to dive into the archieves of past communications in order to make sure that I just didn't make a typo in 2002. Doesn't really matter now. Due to private mails by mast builders and homebuilders we are now ready to correct this error.

We are going to continue with the proposal and vote of on the tip weight rule in slightly modified form. However, using my authority as the Formula 16 chairman and giving as cause the unacceptable situation that maintaining the current rule would immediately outlaw 15 Stealth F16's and some 24 Stealth R's from the class, I immediately lower the minimum required mast tip weight from 6.5 kg to 5.5 kg.

The final vote will decide if the tipweight rule gets deleted in it entirety or that it remains with a value equal or lower than 5.5 kg. I would like to do some more research on the issue before launching the vote, however I do agree that not much more margin is available anymore. Afterall A-cat masts come out at 4.5-4.75 kg tipweights, so that is the bottom realistic limit. And we can't really go higher then 5.5 kg anymore without chasing off a larger segment of the F16 class.

Wouter

Wouter,

You realy have work on being a little less wordy.

In looking at what is available, it seams just to not matter. We are currently limited in available materials, carbon and aluminum being the most often used. As you point out, there is very little difference in finished assembled weight between these 2 materials GIVEN the same exterior cross section and design loads.

The advantages between the 2 materials can be sumed up as:

ALUMINUM; Inexpensive (in quantity)
CARBON; Ajustable. (Laminates can be tapered and modified to put strength or stiffness wherever necessary to meet the sail makers desire. It is also molded so varying cross section is possible if desired)

Anyone can build a super light mast for an F16, but nature is going to break most of those. The design loads are going to naturaly limit the reliable minimum. I am a firm believer in that given boats that are within reasonablely close proximity to one another in specs, the end determination in finish is controlled by the crew.

Except from the potential question of safety, I would have no problem in eliminating the mast tip weight from the F16 rules given they are made from carbon or aluminum. When someone invents that miracle material we have all be waiting for then maybe we could re-evaluate it.

Matt

Saarberg seems to think that 1.1 kg per mtr is a realistic minimal weight for a sloop rigged spi equipped carbon mast. => comes out at tip weight 5.5 kg = about where Stealth Masts are.

I got thinking and before I spend alot of time chasing down mastbuilders etc it may be wise to hold a first voting and let the follow-up be guided by that.

So here is a simple vote.

Please only F16 sailors voting in this one. So only owners of F16's and Taipan 4.9 [color:"red"] WITH [/color] a spinnaker setup and who do sail occasionally in the configuration.



Wouter

why not just delete the mast weight rule entirely.

Then set a single mast registration rule.
Simple and effective.

Can you elaborate on what you mean exactly Stewart ?

Wouter

Wouter

More than half the current F16s you list on your world list currently use Aluminium masts. Getting rid of the tip weight rule makes them uncompetitive. What's the point of alienating half the fleet over night? You are talking about a reduction of 3kg swinging around in the air that can be added to the hulls/boards etc.

And should there not be a majority of those members/F16 sailors required to vote in this to pass this rule. An internet poll is not entirely accurate. Most classes require 2/3 to pass something major like this.

JC

Wouter,
The mast builders know exactly light a mast can be built without compromising structure. Be it aluminium or carbon.
(before anyone raises boron composites. A B/C mast would be lighter BUT brittle and very subject to shock loads from a kite).
So knowing that the builders know far better than the lay sailor. Let them decide how to build a mast. By dropping any weight restrictions. We have already height and depth restrictions.

However to make sure no one gets stupid by sailing with the mast de jour (Mast of the day). Put is a rule that each mast, boom, pole and main needs to be registered. A replacement may be substituted as long as the old is deregistered and the registration made in writing and at the discretion of the measurement committee / registerer. (this has worked successfully in the skiffs). Especially with carbon as no two are exactly alike and thus each needs separate tuning!!

This cleans ups the rules and makes it easier to administer.

Im sure the Tiapan skippers will object. However if the skiff experience is a true record. Then the carbon mast and aluminium tip weights issue will be shown to be a red herring.

S..

Just maintain the same "overall weight" of the catamaran but delete all reference to the mast weight and/or structure (other than it has to be a "mast" and not a "wing") then any reduction in mast weight and/or structure would be relatively minimal to any difference in performance whether real or just percieved. Carbon fibre for masts will very soon be a necessity for most sailing craft, not primarily as the means of obtaining "better performances" but as the means of securing actual supply of masts, and by not incorporating that realisation NOW will not only create greater problems in the near future for the supply of masts but it will also tend to "restrict" future growth of the class.
Beides, if anyone has a problem with something as "minor" to overall performance as the variation in the small difference that "mast tip" weight will have over the individual sailing skills of the relative sailors, then give the aluminium masted boats a small percentage handicap advantage,
(like 0.0001% should cover it)

James,





Unproven and largely hypothetical. Also no designer or boat builder I spoke to cares a damn wether some guys puts a carbon mast on their designs. Blade is seriously not threatened by the Stealth carbon mast and I don't have any sign that many sailors are at all intimidated by it.

I have my own personal opinions in this matter but as an engineer/advicer I can not find much ground to support alu = uncompetitive.

Besides, there are clear signs that both builders and sailors prefer the alu superwing mast section. For its price, performance and ease of maintenance. Over here in the Netherlands I even get specific requests for alu masts as sailors perceive them as more robust and maintenance free.

Why does everybody think that carbon is some magical material that is better in everything ?

Simply put, as long as the Superwing sharing agreement is maintained we'll see the majority of boats sail with that mast simply because most builders favour them.






Which part of the fleet is that exactly ?

I mean, the class will certainly loose over 30 boats in Europe if it maintains the 6.5 kg tipweight, simply because those boats would be banned. When the class deletes the rule than we MAY loose a handfull of sailors.

What is next ? Have the width rule limit F16's to 2.34 mtr ? Maybe the F16's should also ban the larger squaretops we are sailing with and while we are at it ban the longer luffed selftacking jib as well ! Ohh and ban glass/kevlar hulls because these surely must be more competitive than timber/epoxy ones. Where does it end ?

How many times was the end result of these changes that it didn't make much difference if it made any at all ? Timber/epoxy platforms still winning championships after 10 years and as recently as 2003 I believe ?

Sure the feel and comfort of sailing improved with some changes (new Taipan rudders and stocks) but did speed improve by any measureable amount ?

I know from my mainsail design that it handles gusts significantly better than the older Taipan mainsail but it did not have a higher topspeed. Same with the Ashby sails. These are easer to control and trim but not any faster when both sails are trimmed right. Maybe we should ban Ashby sails or force him to make more difficult sails so a certain group of sailors can FEEL more competitive ?

Again, were do we stop ? Were is the line.

Fabio and his significant other sail at 115 kg; should we force them to carry a "tip weight" that brings their combined weight at 130 kg ?

Are we serious working ourself up over 3 kg's in a rig that weights in at 25-28 kg in total ? (mast, sails, shrouds, blocks, halyards, spreaders etc)

The cold hard truth is that the standard Taipan 4.9 despite all these "issues" is still a hell of a competitive boat. And the superwing mast is a hell of good mast, on which it is difficult to improve upon.


I understand that several sailors are really in awe about the material carbon, and readily believe they are uncompetitve overnight if carbon masts are allowed (was there a big roar when sails went from Dacron to Mylar/Kevlar/Pentex /). But how much difference can a Carbon mast really make ? Lets make a wild claim 30 sec in a hour ? How many of you finish within 30 seconds of Fabio in any conditions ? Or Andrew for that matter.

How competitive does halve of the fleet think they are now ?

Another halve of them think they won't be competitive with a spinnaker as they are too light, to small or too young. Fabio and crew are both of the first two things and still won their (spi) races at the DCC. With that very lovely small crew of his pulling on a 17.5 sq. mtr. spi in 15 knots and over. I see crews of as little as two 10-14 year olds pulling kites in 20 knots of wind on a Hobie dragoon and then they are bloody hard to catch as well.


What about kite sailing is to difficult for singlehanding ? Tell Hollis Caffee that, did just that in 15 knots and over at Tradewinds. Or Gary of Altered ? Or any of a score of others.

You know what I really do think ?

That uncompetitiveness is a creation of the mind. The minute you think you are uncompetive is the instant in which you become uncompetitive. And this has nothing to do with 3 kg more or less in your mast or (much larger) differences in crew weights.

You just have to learn to sail well and maximize your strong points.




Of course my reply can now only be :

"You think that matters much ? Much, as in relation to those 25-28 kg's allready swinging about up there as well as the 70 kgs of platform being pulled through the same motions by the shrouds, not to mention the 75 kg to 150 kg crews ? "

"You think that being 3 kg over min class weight so you can put those kg's into hulls/boards as well makes you uncompetitive ? More so than sailing with a crew that is 3 kg above optimal weight ? "

How does Ellen McArthur win those big races ? It is not like she is big and strong like 90 % of her competition.

So what does really make a crew competitive ?





Yeah, but F16 is certainly not like most other classes. Thank God for that !

If 2/3 of the class is always right then we would never have had the spi equipped Tornado but simply a dead Tornado class and a different boat in the Olympics. Maybe not even a multihull.

If 2/3 of a class is always right then we wouldn't have 30 Stealths in the F16 class.

If 2/3 of a class is always right then we would not have a spinnaker on fast lightweight 16 footers.

If 2/3 of a class is always right then we wouldn't have Hobie Tigers that can measure up against the other F18's

If 2/3 of a class is always right than we would all still be sailing Hobie 16's and Prindle 16's

If 2/3 of a class is always right than we would still have Tornado classic class. The simple fact that there isn't says alot for the commitment and value of 2/3rd of a class.

2/3rd of nearly any class is made up of scared people; who will vote down ANY change from they currently own. This is a receipe for stagnation and honestly, stagnation in any catamaran class is at this particular time a prelude to death. Even the laser dinghy class he modernized over the last 2 years by allowing more cleats, block and purchase systems on the boats.


Besides we still have not established wether this change is something "MAJOR" to begin with.

Also please note that this vote is only a preliminary one. It guides the follow-up path as I said the accompanying text.


And in addition to that, as a chairman, I don't see much reason in maintaining a rule to satisfy a group of sailors that doesn't do F16 anyway.

However if this issue is creating a big stirr in the rest of the F16 class then we will certainly have a written voting proces where every voter is verified as a F16 boat owner/racer (with race results as F16 in the last 2 years). Than we'll see exactly how many F16's sailor truly think bad fibes when thinking about deleting the tip weight rule.


James, it may be that large portions of this reply may not relate to you personally. Still, the situation is the sameall the time. We hear nothing from the general area near you except when F16 rules are being relaxed or when a perceived uncompetitiveness to the One-Design Taipan 4.9 design is experienced. I will certainly do my best to adress these concerns but put everything in a form that is acceptable to all, but I will certainly not go as far as two years ago. Then the area around you had some value, but now honestly, it doesn't matter what that area thinks or feels. However as I said earlier, I want to to do good by you guys and will endeavour in that direction as I feel the F16 class spirit demands.


Wouter

All I can say Wouter is:

"Don't assume that assumption"

Don't have to write essays as replies as some people do have to work.

In that case explain to us why a carbon masts would make all other designs uncompetitive over night. And no, "3kg swinging around up there" is not enough.

Secondly are you selling your Taipan 4.9 ?

If so, are you buying one back ?

If not then I rest my case.

If you are then are you buying an Taipan F16 ?

If not then I'll rest my case again.

If you are buying an F16 and are seriously worried in the alu-carbon mast issue then, and only then, lets continue to analyse the situation and come up with a comparison between your alu-masted F16 of choice and the same design with a carbon mast.

Sorry James, I may be barking up the wrong tree here, but I've been in these discussions so many times that I have acquired a short temper on these issues. Especially with Australian Taipan 4.9 sailors who don't really want to sail F16 anyway. You may be different but several others are(were) not.

So lets stop fooling one-another and say it like it is.

You wanna be an F16 sailor ? Good, I will do everything in my power to make the class attractive to you.

You wanna be a OD Taipan 4.9 sailor ? Equally fine by me, but please don't mingle to much with F16 class rules decisions, you belong to a different class.

To other readers, there is some private communication going on on tip weights with people I seriously don't expect to sail F16's in the future. I don't see any point in these communications at all if the only goal of them is to limit the F16 class in getting to get to far ahead of the standard One-Design Taipan 4.9's. That is called throttling.

For Taipan 4.9 sailors who do sail F16's or want to sail F16's, I'm all ears and will do my utmost to keep racing fair to you guys. That is why you may race with oversized jibs for example. And we (not I in this respect) are serious analysing the carbon masts and their impact.

Wouter

Yes I am selling my boat. No I am not immediately buying one back. I am going backpacking for a while then going to work in London. Need to progress my career to be able to buy more boats.

When I am back in Australia I will be buying a Taipan. This will most likely be a brand spanking new one. Whether or not I race it I race my Taipan as 4.9OD or F16 is all dependent on the best racing. Hence my interest in the proposed rules changes.

In relation to 3kg extra weight on the mast. I am not an engineer so I can not put up any numbers whatsoever to support my argument. The only thing I can say is why does every hi-performance yacht try and save weight aloft?

In relation to your other comments. Your views are very polarising so you have to expect that people will become upset. As Chairman I believe that you do need to be diplomatic and that people do have a right to their views. If they are making comments or criticisms it is because they have an interest in F16. They are not throttling the development and growth of the F16 class.

JC

James,

I respect this.

Allow me to reply your last post with a few additional comments.




That is a argument I can react to. F16 racing in Aus and for that matter in other parts of the world is grown and developped by having multiple builders in the class. It gives the class both stability and a increased numbers if all builders promote their product next to the class as a whole. This is of course evident. In order to keep builders in the class or attract more builders in to the class we are faced with two issues :

-1- Some builders do not want to be dependent on a remote extrusion company as a source of their mast.

-2- Some builders want to maintain a more firm hold on the Goodall Superwing sharing deal.

Both necessitate allowing carbon masts in the class.

Of course we can do that at tipweight = 6.5 kg, however for some reason 30 F16 boats do not comply with this part of the rule.

Don't ask me how, because I was under the impression they were compliant till 2 month ago. But it turned out they aren't and probably never were. So pretty much we have to either ban all these boats or lower the tip weight to 5.5 kg. Pretty much 5.5 kg is pretty close to what appears as the minimum realistic tip weight anyway, so if we are going to lower to this level why not remove the rule altogether ?

This last option is both favoured by a good portions of the sailors, if my perception is right, and is not feared by the builders. Both Blade builders will continue to use the Superwing section and so too will AHPC.

I also found that some sailors, like the guys in Switserland want carbon masts.

It will be evident by opening up the carbon mast rule or deleting it both builders and new customers will be more happy. This will translate itself in more sailors and as such as improved racing over time.

Pretty much the expected growth of opening up the rules is bigger than any loss expected due to NOT maintaining the current rule. This is issue 1.

Issue 2, The F16 rules are "spirited" around the concept that only important factors are limited. The current mast tipweight rule doesn't seem to live up to this criterium. It simply doesn't appear to ban a clear inequality in the way that limits on width or sailarea do for example.

This issue is of course all about numbers and engineering I understand that. However before we all vote on the rules we need to try to understand that there is hardly a sound scientific basis supporting a perceived inequality between boats when lowering mast tipweight. The case behind width is very clear, so to behind limits on sail area and mast length. The case behind the tipweight is largely a faith-based one. What we do have is the fact that the boats with the alu mast certainly do not feel hampered by it (diving or having slow dying oscilations). Not in the way I can personally attest to when looking at the Nacra 5.5, FX-one and other alu masted designs. So what we have ended up with is a rule that both fails to have a clear scientific basis and fails to have a clear empirical basis.

So I repeat : The current mast tipweight rule doesn't seem to hold up to the ultimate F16 criterium for class rules.



3rd issue; as a class chairman I rather organise the checking of boats with fewer limits. And measuring the mast tip weight is very much a measurement that requires both time, manpower and space. This is all fine if we get alot of equality in return but it is just foolish if it tipweight doesn't really matter much.

4th issue : In the past one of the main reasons to have the tip weight rule was to garantee carbon masts that would hold up to rough F16 sailing. Now a certain builder broke a few masts will experimenting with carbon masts but their current 5.5 kg tipweight masts seem to hold up pretty well. A few homebuilders are sailing with underweight masts right now that are made compliant with lead or timber glues inside the top of the mast. Arguably both modes do little to inceases the resistance of the mast against abuse or harsh conditions. So the rule is failing in its goal of garanteing dependable mast. Especially now as little over 30 boats (25 % of the class) will all have to put batteries up their mast tops. It will be a little awkward to do so because that "would make their masts more dependable in rough conditions"

I agree that this issue of the 30 non-compliant boats is something I'm not happy. But that is not something for this public forum to discuss in detail. Were the tipweight a very important factor than the class would move to ban this non-compliance and force everybody to become compliant. However, it appears that this tipweight is not a serious factor if one at all, so the question becomes do we still ban these 30 boats ? Do we ban them on something that may well be insignificant. Everybody must make their own appreciation of this. But remember that ones you'll be on the receiving end of such a vote, so it will be wise to really consider this tipweight voting from the perspective of the others. It will be very tempting to vote down anything that doesn't hurt you. But I fear we'll end up voting down the oversized jib dispensation for the Taipans in the next vote. And this is the reason why F16 class does not have a "2/3rd of the class forces a decision" setup.


5th issue ; Their is movement on the front of carbon masts. There are some initiatives to have these produced at much reduced prices. It is possible that carbon masts end up being about as expensive as an Alu mast. As good as all other classes that mean a thing internationally are moving in the direction of carbon masts. Tornado, F20's, A-cats, all except the F18's. Also part of our direct competition is moving in the direction. It may turn out to be vital for us in the long term to open up our rules to allow us to follow the trend when the need to do so arises. This is of course very important in growing our class and F16 racing everywhere. No racing is as unattractive of racing in a dead or dying class. It may not be perfect but a vital class is always to be prefered over one that is losing the battle with the competition. Even if some inequality exist between tipweight this may well be worth accepting if it garantees continued vitality. A hard issue to make judgement upon, I understand, but nevertheless something that must be looked at really hard.


6 th issue ; what is uncompetitiveness really. 90 % the fleet will not change position relative to other sailors when their boat for some reason is 1 to 2 % slower OR faster than the others. That is simply the case in reality. Personally I can't not come close to either Fabio, Andrew or Jennifer even when sailing a Tornado and my life depended on it. For this part of the fleet it doesn't matter at ALL wether or not a thing like tipweight makes a noticeable difference or not. Competitiveness in their league is totally determined by sailing skills and the amount of practise they are willing to put in. So the question really becomes how important is any small inequality with respect to the top 10 % of sailors. These guys tend to experiement largely with sail cut and trim anyway and often buy new suits of sail regulary. They buy polyester nylon spinnakers and 3D molded sails if they can gether the money for it. They sail with the latest foil shapes and what not else. We can't realistically ban all of this and for these guys it is a piece of cake to buy a carbon mast if they feel that makes them competitive for 1st place. I personally have a really hard time explaining to a whole class of sailors how this is unfair to them, ASSUMING that a noticeable difference exists which we simply can't proof right now ? First, 90 % of them isn't competitive with the top 10 % of the class at their level of commitment anyway and secondly a good tack or proper start is enough to fully compensate for any small inequality if ever such a thing exist. And this is when we don't even look at differences in crew weight. All classes currently accept differences in crew weight of at least 15-20 kg's without much fuss, but we feel that some other factor possibly giving the same amount of inequality or less is unacceptable. This is simply not consist, actually it is being subjective. So the question really is what is competitiveness ?

It is indeed my personal opinion that we often make too much fuss about things that don't really matter much, if at all. On both engineering principles and the feel of sailing with the superwing mast I truly feel that tip weight is a mute point when racing F16 designs of different make and with different crews against one another. In any way, alot more mute than say sailarea or mast height.

And to end this post the last issue :

7th issue ; after close examination I came to the conclusion that an alu mast can be designed to have the same weight to stiffness ratio as a carbon mast. Simply by adjusting the ratio between enertia of the crossection and the density of the material. If you are using ribs inside the mast to alter the crossection enertia than you won't alter the overall weight of a given alu mast. Note how this means that you can have any ratio of weight to stiffness in an alu mast. By scaling the cross section of the mast for this optimal cross section shape with ribs you can end up with any bending curve. So, with proper designing you can get a very optimal alu mast section. Something I think the Superwing mast achieved. This only leaves the typicall lighter weight of carbon mast in the way of overall boat weight or improved dive recoverey as the only factors that could favour a carbon mast over an alu one. Noting that in the F16 format the difference is pretty much limited to 3 kg and the Alu masted F16's don't have any issues with dive recovery at all makes any NOTICEABLE inequality between carbon mast and alu mast very unlikely. Let alone an unacceptable inequality.


Now several sailor may have read all this and still decide that they think tip weight a major factor in performance To them I say what do you want me to do about redesigned alu masts or carbon mast with the full tip weight but different crosssections ? To them I say, the feeling of uncompetitiveness is an issue that is far better solved in your own mind then by any class rules. That and losing some 15 kg of body weight and train sailing at least 15 hours a week.


Wouter


P.S. Sorry about this essay James, but how else can I explain it ?

James named the F16 class voting on this forum "not entirely accurate"

In order to nip this one in the butt I would like to ask any F16 boat owner (meaning a true F16 or a Taipan 4.9 with a spinnaker setup) to mail me privately at Formula16class@hotmail.com and express his or her unease at the proposed relaxation or deletion of the tip weight rule.

This way the voting can be fully verified and is is fully private.

Sailors may also send in their mails of support for relaxing or deleting the tip weight rule.

Anybody who does not send in any mail is assumed to support what ever the body of local class heads is deciding (Phill Brander, Eric Poulsen, John Pierce, Steve Mellet, Scott McCook and Wouter Hijink)

This window to send in your mails will run from now (25 jan 2005 to 25 feb 2005)

You are required to supply your full name, boat name (if any), boat type and your sailnumber. Only one vote per individual boat is allowed, as always. So you vote as a crew. If you don't satisfy these 5 conditions then your mail will be thrown out.


Thank you,

Wouter Hijink

Chairman Formula 16 class.

If the real problem with the tip weight is this 30 boats that have somehow snuck below minimum then why not just get them to add some weight just the same as Gary had to with his Altered.
Cheers Phil

Altered doesn't comply with the 6.5 kg tip weight rule either. That was undoable.

he had to put 2 kg in the very top of his mast and as such his moment of enertia would come out at more than the AHPC superwing mast. This is the problem with tip weights. They are determine by first order moments while the the moment or enertia is a second order moment. So to Altered this was neither fair NOR safe (boat going turtle)

I forgot to mention that in my other posts but there are way to cheat the tip weight rule. You have the 6.5 kg tip weight but with less enertia than the rule aimed to allow.

With progressing knowlegde and simulation it was found that the tip weight rule is less effective then was assumed at the beginning. I'm to blame for that, I know, but now that I know I'm trying to correct the mistakes.

Wouter

Wouter

Will send you email with my vote

Another issue not considered, INSURANCE.

In Australia it is becoming more expensive to insure your boat on a yearly basis. In the cases of some insurance companies, as soon as you mention carbon mast you have to insure the mast seperately from the rest of the boat. That is 2 policies so even greater cost.

Since most insurance companies follow each other in being bastards I am sure that this will become the norm. Many insurance companies were stung when carbon masts first came in and perceive them to be greater risk.

Not everything has to come down to performance.

JC

Insurance problems ?

Then sail with the aluminium mast.

It is not that I'm asking you to do something that I'm not doing myself. I have the superwing mast myself and I'm racing at least 3 carbon masted Stealths this season.

I really don't see this insurance problem.

Wouter

Thought that YA was supposed to be finding insurance for racing boats.

If your having challenges.. I could ask my insurance brokers to look into the issue.

YA not doing too much on that front, or if they are not passing the information to affiliated classes. Taipan class and a few others has been supported by one insurance broker in VIC, but after 4 years has not made any money out of us. Too many big claims which is costing him big.

Well. suggest your (tiapan association) VYA rep asks at the committee meeting what is happening re insurance.
The Vic rep to YA should know.. If not why not?

Also your club rep to VYA should also be on the case. Again if not why not? But this means people will have to attend the association meetings and or their club meetings.
S..

[quote]
"Altered doesn't comply with the 6.5 kg tip weight rule either. That was undoable.

he had to put 2 kg in the very top of his mast and as such his moment of enertia would come out at more than the AHPC superwing mast."

It is correct that Altered's mast is under 6.5kg. tip weight. After gluing cedar in crossways of aprox. 1kg per 1.5 metres from the spinnaker point down to the base, I ended up with a 6kg tip weight but was perfectly willing to add a .5kg corrector to the tip.

It would be possible to bring the Stealth masts up to 6.5kg by adding a corrector. But what would it achieve certainly not a increase in strength. As for the Aussie Taipan percieved problem I believe they are already above 6.5kg tip weight is that correct, I am sure you have weighed your masts wanting to be competitive in F16 and all.

I still am unsure on this change it is a big reduction either going to 5.5kg. or losing it completly. Maybe 6kg. would be a better minimum.

Regards Gary.

Hi Taipanfc,

I think you should try another Insurance company. I have always found general insurers best, they have no knowledge of sailing craft. As you can see I am based in Vic. my current insurance premium was 2/3 of what Club Marine wanted and they don't know carbon from aluminium.

Regards Gary.

big question is...
Any issues with your lighter mast holding up the kite?

Hi all,

Slightly off topic, but still a rules discussion...

I was just wondering if it is necessary, or even prudent, to have a rules review every single year? I understand that from time to time the class rules should be reviewed to see if there are any improvements that can be made or problems corrected, but in the classes infancy and development, might it be wiser to review the rules on a more spread out basis such as every two or three years?

I know I'm not the most verbose member of the class by any means, but I do check the forums almost every working day (sometimes more than once) and I do read (almost) everything. But from outside the class it must look as though every year we rewriting the rules.

Regular readers of the forum will know that this is not the case and that the rules change only in very small degrees if at all, however I can see outsiders looking into the class and saying "oh, they still haven't figured out the rules yet so I don't want to get into that class yet."

Perhaps we should change the 'rules' so that there is only a difinitive review every 3 years or so or if there is a major change in some way (like the world supply of aluminium drying up or something)?

It also might make less typing for you Wouter?

Andy Collins.

No it will not be necessary anymore. Pretty much this rules discussion was caused by a pressing issue in the class. Otherwise we wouldn't have it. The 2002 F16 class ruleset has proven to be very stable and dependable. With each passing year there is less and less that can possibly be reviewed.





I will not have any problems with that as long as it doesn't limits the ability to quickly react to unexpected developments. The trick we have in the F16 class is that we rule on things before they have well penetrated into the class as a whole. If we limit such reaction to 2 or 3 years we'll create alot of problems.

I am however, very willing to run with your proposal to schedule the general REVIEWS over say 2 to 3 years. The current rules certainly allow that.

Do you want to press this proposal further ?





You are correct but we decided that the F16 class will do everything out in the open and that may have drawbacks we just have to accept. If people are scared away so easily and on a misconception even, than I don't think much of them as class members as well. It is a hard decision but the valuable members of the class do educated themselfs properly on what is going on and see the smaller issues for what they are, small issues.

My argument here is that at a certain point the class must demand of its members to make an effort and learn what is going on. We are not a Single Manufactorer One Design class (SMOD) where "daddy" takes care of all things.





Personally I know that all serious competition are currently in this phase ; From carbon masts in the Tornado class to non furling fully battened jibs in the F18 class. The A-cat class is currently breaking their heads over how to become the fastest baot on the water again and even the Hobie 16 class is debating the spinnaker issue. I-17's have the issue of standardizing the boats over the world and the different size spinnakers in the F17 class. And so on.

If people get scared here with us where everything is out in the open and they can participate and influence the voting. Then the sure are scared away from any of these other classes where the decisions are made behind closed doors by the whigs.

The new sailors should rather see the special character of this F16 class. I promise everybody that we'll listen to all arguments and will take into account all of them. We are a sailors driven class. Not builder driven or ISAF whig driven.





I am fearful of the including a rule like that because these things always come back to hunt you at a later time. However an agreement outside the class rules will have the about the same value for us F16 officials. IF we all all agree that the next review will be in teh winter of 2007/2008 then there must be some important and pressureing matter if the body of class heads is to break this agreement.

Would that suffice Andrew ?





And I'm very interested in that, believe me !


Wouter

Andrew,
I must say that I agree that a yearly review of class rules in the longer term is just too frequent.
You have suggested 3 year review while I would be happier in the longer term to see a 5 year review with a safety trigger that can bring about a review at any time.
Criteria for this trigger would have to be decided upon.
The case you mentioned ie- aluminium shortage or the loss of the supply of a viable aluminium mast would be a valid trigger.
I suppose when getting a Class like this off the ground you need to make fairly frequesnt periodic checks at the beginning to make sure you are on track.
The last review prevented people from glueing in their carbon beams. This was put forward by one of the builders and in my opinion was an excellent initiative.
Had we waited longer and other builders started glueing in carbon beams we may have found ourselves compelled, either by performance but more likely precieved performance differences, to use carbon beams.
We just don't need to add more costs to what is already an expensive sport.
This brings up another important point. Something that people should consider when looking at these questions.

Like it or not - Perception is Reality.

If someone thinks it is real then it is.

Something does not have to be faster for people to feel compelled to use it.

If you feel compelled to use something that is more expensive than you can afford in order to be competative, and if you can't enjoy the sport unless you feel as though you are competative, then you may just fall by the way side.

When looking at the mast tip question we should consider this very carefully. Do we want to be a small elete group of people that think we are fast or would we like to be a larger group of people that are in reality, in our minds and on the water, equally as fast.

When talking about carbon masts we must acknowledge that the major cost of the mast is not the material but the labour. while the material prices may go down what is the chance of that happenning to the labour component.

With an ever increasing labour component, I can not in all concience vote to drop the mast tip weight.
Just as I could not vote to ban carbon masts.
They must be there as an option. Howexer, while we have a viable and cheaper source of aluminium mast we don't want people to percieve they need a carbon mast to be competative.

Now I know all the arguements about the equality in the performance of these sections and don't care about
any of them.
I only care about peoples perception. That is reality.

The reason this question is being put forward is because of an unforeseen problem that has come up when all parties were acting in good faith.

While I can not vote to drop the mast tip weight.
At the same time I do not see how we can as a group ask people to put weights on their mast when they believed from the beginning that the boat they were buying was fully compliant without the weights.

We as a class have a dilema.

We need a sollution to this problem that will satisfy all parties.

I would suggest that all boats purchased with the belief they comply to the class rules be dispensated to race in all but National and International events. In those events they must carry weights.
That all other boats comply to the rule in all events.
That the manufacturer of the carbon mast be asked to increase the tip weight to the class minimum for all future boats and let it be known to people that want to use carbon that it is OK but they must comply.

We have rules and we must stick to them and be seen to abide by them to give the class the level of credability it deserves.

This is just the way I see it.

Hi Stewart,
it's early days yet, but it has stood up to the pressures better than some parts of the boat did. But seriously carbon A mast with timber inside has put up with minor nose dives with spin up, flogged spin. in 20kts., tight wind trapezing with spin, etc. By no means proved to be bullet proof but certainly doing OK so far. Only time will tell.

Regards Gary.

Wouter,
Wouldn`t a compromise between the two groups of F16 sailors be in the best interest of the class here ? I think that exploring both extremes and setting one as the final decision is not as good an outcome as finding the middle ground.

"We are going to continue with the proposal and vote of on the tip weight rule in slightly modified form. However, using my authority as the Formula 16 chairman and giving as cause the unacceptable situation that maintaining the current rule would immediately outlaw 15 Stealth F16's and some 24 Stealth R's from the class, I immediately lower the minimum required mast tip weight from 6.5 kg to 5.5 kg."

Surely this is enough of a change in the rules, it allows all Stealth owners inclusion in the class, and only lowers the tip weight by 1kg, a compromise all sensible F16 owners should accept. I think you`ll find most Taipan sailors THAT ARE INVOLVED IN F16 will be more than happy to accept this over a complete scrapping of the mast tip weight rule. It should keep things closer between the two different camps, (even if the difference is only a percieved one), thereby not alienating either party.
The situation might then not be an ideal one for carbon mast producers, or those who wish to use them, but at least those who wish to compete on equal footing and still use alu. masts won`t PERCIEVE they are at a disadvantage.

Steve

This emergency rule is ONLY a temporary one and the final decision is still pending. For new masts build the 6.5 kg tipweight rule still applies.

There is movement on this front and I hope to settle this issue permanently soon.

Wouter

I agree Steve, this seems like a sensible compromise that allows inclusion, development yet doesn't adversely affect existing boats.

Wouter: what's wrong with this suggestion?? You mentioned in one of your first posts that Saarberg could produce a dependable carbon mast that would result in a tip weight of 5.5kg, so what's the big deal?

On the one hand, you've immediately scrapped the 6.5kg tip weight rule and changed it to 5.5kg. Fair enough, I think we can all see why this was done and seems to be fair and reasonable to include all the Stealth's that already exist and to promote harmony between all the F16 sub-classes. Then you say that all new masts must comply with the 6.5kg tipweight rule that is still in force. I don't understand - didn't you just change that rule as part of your 'chairman' abilities???

Also, you champion the fact that we are a class that discusses rules, changes, developments, thoughts etc openly yet you say that there is 'movement' regarding this rule and you're going to settle it shortly. again.... I don't understand! what is this movement, why haven't we been told about it, who is the movement being done by/to, will this be another rule that becomes 'chairman-ised' and when do 'we' get to know about it????


On the up-side, thanks for the short post - even though it did prompt even more questions.

Andy.

Please wait.




Nothing wrong. I'm just waiting for a public Catsailor posting by a party and for a reply by the Aus Taipan sailors. I totally expect to see the first and may have to abandon waiting for the second if they do not reply. But I'm giving both parties time in which to formulate and enter a response.



What are you really asking here, can you explain please ?





My mistake I used my powers as a chairman to TEMPORARY lower the masttipweight so that we didn't have to turn away any Stealth F16 sailors at racing while we were still debating what to do. This bought us time. The warning to new masts is that I don't know yet what will happen with the tipweight rule but what ever happens will applie to all masts. Even if it is decided to keep the old rule.





Well, I think I suspended it temporarily more than changed it permanently. At least for now.





We are measuring masts at this time and debating between a few important parties about what to do. Also WE're going to settle this issue soon. Not I. If I settle the issue than it means that we couldn't find concensus with the various parties and that I have to force the decision, I'm trying to avoid that. You will know more when more news comes in. Please be patient.





Relax man, I'm not doing this for pay and these things cost time. You will all know about it and get a chance to give a piece of your mind on it as well. As always !

Wouter



On the up-side, thanks for the short post - even though it did prompt even more questions.

Andy.

I have been pointing out that weezy runs your "Class" like it is his own little toy.
I have been warning you people that weezy will do what ever HE wants to please his friends in europe.
He tinkers with the class rules whenever he has a brain fart or a mfg calls up.
That is not a "Class", it is a childs plaything.

Are you ever going to have a real class and VOTE on something?
How many years before someone else has an opportunity to run things?
You "vote" on class issues and weezy collects the votes and tells you the outcome.
Of course the outcome is always what he wants.
What a coincidence.
Or he will override the vote on "technical" reasons.

HOW LONG WILL YOU PEOPLE PUT UP WITH IT?

I've you just wait a little while you can save yourself another embarasment.

Wouter

Sam, if you had another neuron, you could have a synapse and be almost dangerous.

Seeing as our masts are the primary reason for this discussion I thought itt time that I add my opinion to the melting pot.

First as you may guess I am in favour of abolishing the tip weight as a measurement.

Carbon mast have not been seen in mainstream catamaran classes until now, it is not realistic to say how light a durable mast can be made at this point, I can tell you that they can be considerably lighter than aluminium and still stronger.

We are a developement class and part and parcel of this type of rule is that boats are allowed to get better and better. However it is controlled improvement in as much as the main performance enhancing parameters are defined.

Hull drag by limiting length and minimum weight
Sail power by limiting dimension of sails
Access to sail power by limiting width.

With these dimensions fixed, any improvments made will be in small increments, I don't believe that any-one will come up with anything that will overnight make all other boats obsolete, but the strength of the concept is that over a long period the boat will get faster and easier to use, the old boats may become outdated but the class will not become obsolete, we can expect evolution not revolution.

So how will the mast tip issue impact on the class, in the short term not a great deal, the majority of catamarans have aluminium masts with greater tip weights than ours, we are ahead of them.

However carbon masts are coming to mass catamaran sailing, all the major spar manufacturers are investing heavily in carbon technology, the price is coming down and will continue to come down, alumium masts on seriuos racing boats will eventually go the same way that wooden ones went.

Already there is little difference in the price of carbon and aluminium masts.

Lighter mast tips will offer these improvements

Easier to raise the mast

Easier to right a capsized boat.

Slightly faster upwind in chop.

No-one will have a problem with the first 2 points the only issue is the third.

The increase in speed we are talikng about is very difiicult to measure and is certainly a fraction of a %.

To be honest if we are worried about this we should worry about other things effecting rig weight Cuben fibre sails would save as much, aramid rigging some more should we limit sail cloth weight and rigging weight, or should we do what we are aklready doing and say, when the price of this technology becomes affordable I'll have it.

Well carbon masts are affordable, you can have them now.

Mast makers need to be given the freedom to find out how light a DURABLE mast can be made after all we only want to give you our potential customers a better easier to use product can that be bad.

Aluminium masts could be made lighter than they currently are, but spar manufacturers have found the safe limit to go to, and we have reliable masts, they will adopt the same approach with using carbon as a material.

if we leave the tip weight in then any light masts will have to have lead on them just like the old Tornado masts did, and just like any light boat must add lead.

But remember this is about the distribution of the weight on the boat, all boats will still weigh the same.

To hell with any "class" discussions, I just want to see what kind of a fool SAM EVENS is goimg to make of himself next (he reminds me of a "visious" version of MIGLETO on sailing anarchy - for any one who is familiar with that "saga")?
Darryl J Barrett

I think perhaps too much is being made of the mast tip weight issue - as John Pierce puts it, when mast builders find the limit of a durable mast in carbon, they will have reached a point where it can`t become any lighter unless it becomes more fragile. Ultimately a super-light carbon mast will still heave a "tip weight", it can never be zero (unless the mast is filled with helium ). So if the tip weight comes out at 3kg, the gain would only be 3,5kg over the current rule, or 2,5kg over the current Stealth mast. Now I know that if I bought a super-light carbon mast I might go up one placing in my fleet, but it would take a lot more than that to elevate me to the point where I am "unbeatable" due to an equipment advantage.
Another factor to take into consideration on the mast tip weight rule is that, should certain boats (such as the Mosquito) within the F16 framework, elect to have a substantially SHORTER mast than the max. allowed, this would reduce the tip weight even more since the leverage is shorter (I`m no engineer, so please excuse my theory here if it`s incorrect.) Ok, the Mosquito is a bad example as it`s not full F16, but should someone develop a short fat rig with an idea of challenging the high-aspect ratio believers, he should not be limited to a mast tip weight that works for an 8,5m mast when his mast is only 7,3m.

The only negative aspect of doing away with the min. tip weight I can see is that the F16 class is made up of (mostly) boats that are OD classes such as Taipan, Stealth, Spitfire, Blade etc, who must comply with their own class rules to race OD. If the perception is that carbon is better, lighter & faster, who would buy a class-legal mast and a carbon mast for F16 use only ?

Another interesting thing is how will the Stealth class take the news that all older Stealths have a tip-weight of 5.5kg, but newer boats can have lighter masts ? Within a One-design framework this is a dangerous thing to do and I`m sure John Pierce knows this. Just because the technology exists that allows him to build lighter masts than he could 3 years ago doesn`t mean that he should use it, unless he wants his class to disintegrate.

I think we need to be careful not to open the rules up to the point where the original founder boats in the class are no longer competitive. Development is good as long as it is not too rapidly implemeted. Saying full carbon hulls are allowed is fine, as long as the boat complies with min. weight. Removing the min. weight starts an arms race.

With this in mind I would think lowering the min. weight to accommodate the Stealths is all that would be required at this point in time. The percieved performance advantage of carbon over alu. would then be acceptable to 90% of the members.

Oh, and just a small note to John Pierce :
"Already there is little difference in the price of carbon and aluminium masts."
"Well carbon masts are affordable, you can have them now."
Please send me 1x 7,3m carbon mast for Mosquito catamaran, painted to match natural anodised aluminium, together with invoice for 150 pounds. That`s what I`m paying for an aluminium mast blank, anodised. (don`t worry John, I won`t hold you to that price )

Cheers
Steve

Sammy:
Are you thinking of joining the F-16 class now that the Hobie 17 is Dying due to HobieCat America bailing out on you? (and the entire US Catsaiing community)
If yer hanging out in this Forum offering your input as to class direction, that MUST be the case.
If so guess we'll be sailing against one another again.
How fun is that??
Which boat are you buying?
CARY
www.seacats.org

Anyway to keep progress going I put in this update, I also expect everybody who wants a say in the matter of tipweights to be aware of the following info. You will need to base you vote upon.

Mast data :

I-20 Carbon ; overall weight = About 21.0 kg ; tipweight about 10.0 kg
Tornado alu : Overall weight about 23 kg ; Tipwweight 10.0-10.5 kg
Tornado carbon : Overall weight about 15.5 kg : Tipweight about 7.0 kg
F18 : Overall weight about 19.5 - 21.0 kg ; Tipweight 9.3 - 10.0 kg (depending on the make : Mattia = lightest, Tiger = heaviest)
Hobie FX-one : Overall weight 19.9 kg ; Tipweight 9.5 kg
I-17R (best est.) ; Overall weight about 14.5 kg: tipweight about 6.8 kg (comments by sailors suggest heavier mast etc)
A-cats : Overall weight about 9.5 kg Tipweights ; 4.5 - 5 kg's

Superwing F16 : Overall weight about 16 kg ; Tipweight 7.3-7.6 kg (depending on weight used spreaders and other fittings)
Stealth F16 doublehander : overall weight about 13.5 kg ; tipweight about 6.3 kg (Standard masts)
Stealth F16 singlehander : overall weight about 12 kg ; tipweight about 5.5 kg (These are special custom order masts)

Of course the Superwing mast is the alu section that is featured on the Taipans and Blades and as good as certain on a 3rd new F16.

When looking at righting the boats the Alu masted Taipans and Blades are about as easy to right as the carbon masted I-17R or easier depending on how good our estimate of the I17R masts is. It is however unlikely that the I-17R is easier to right. The only boats currently easier to right than the alu masted F16's are the carbon masted F16 and the A-cats. The FX-one required some 2kg*8.5mtr = 17 kg extra bodyweight to right which is what was found in real life as well. A Taipan 4.9 with alu mast can be righted by a 70 kg person (naked body weight). The Stealth doublehander (at 6.3 kg tipw) can be righted by a person 10 kg lighter = 60 kg's or more. A 6.0 kg mast tipweight limit would allow a person of 57 kg or more to right the boat by normal means (righting line)


So the situation we have is as follows :

Right now the Stealth carbon masts are between 2.5 and 4 kg's lighter in overall weight depending on which type you order with your boat. The Tipweights differ by 2 kg at maximum. The comparison between only doublehanders is respectively 2.5 kg overall and 1 to 1.3 kg tipweight.

The concensus between builders is that the current aluminium users are really not interested in having carbon masts on their boats. And the Goodall Superwing mastsection deal is fully intended to hold for the future. Greg Goodall himself expressed that to me. I can add to this that the production of these mast is NOT an issue. We don't seem to have problems sourcing these masts or have them produced. I must also be said that the builder using carbon mast is currently building the most inexpensive F16 boats. In his case the carbon masts are NOT making the boat (needlessly) expensive.

The same builders do want to keep open the option of carbon for the future, as a precaution to future events that we can't predict at this time. Some what to go further in this than others.

The alu mast builders favour a tipweight rule to assure buyers that the alu and carbon masted boats are equal in performance. They agree that there is probably not much difference in real performance but there is a general fear with respect to the PERCEIVED advantage of carbon. For this reason they do not wish to push for a carbon mast ban or to penalize them. They do however seek a methode of garanteeing (perceived) equality in level racing. As of such the alu mast builders want to keep some kind of tipweight rule while the carbon mast builder favours full deletion. Having said this, it appears the carbon mast builder is not really hung up on the deletion of the rule. So there is room for a good compromise between the builders.


When looking at the mast data again we see that the A-cat masts when going from alu to carbon saved at least 6 kg in total and at least 2.5 kg in tipweights. The Tornado saved about 8 kg's and about 3 kg in tipweights. In relation to this the differences between F16 alu and F16 carbon are significantly less. At the currently tipweight rule (6.5 kg) we are looking at a difference in overall weight of about 2 kg and a tipweight difference of 1 kg. Any differences between both makes of mast will be limited to the same degree. We must be careful not to extrapolate any differences found in both A-cat and Tornado classes to the F16 class. Example: IF, and it really say IF, a difference of 30 secons is found in the tornado class than F16 may expect only 1/3rd of that or at most 10 second difference. The opinion of builders is that the differences are less than that. The opinion of the F16 class body is that tens of other design differences between different F16 makes give cause to theoretical differences like that on the water these are noticeable. That is what the F18 class has proven over the last 10 years. As John said there is evolution but not revolution. For example The Inter18 is no longer the wapon of choice but was very much considered competitive for a shy 10 years. And even now the REAL difference very small and neglectable for 85 % of the racing fleet who don't finish in the top 15 % regulary anyway.

The best quote I got was that the expected difference (without any tip rule) between optimal aluminium and optimal carbon was less than the difference between new years and 1-year old sails. So if you want to spend money to be and feel competitive then buy new sails every year. As all competitive One-design class sailors do anyway, as we all know. So no difference here.

Update on the write-in voting :

We have one more vote in favour of complete deletion of the tipweight rule than we have in favour of the tipweight rule. The mailed votes however less than the numbers of voters in the internet poll. Right at this time the Internet poll is at 8 pro and 8 against. All signs point in the direction of a compromise were we keep the tipweight rule (for perception purposes) and allow a little room for future evolution and factors like ease of righting.

There is a way to make the current tipweight rule theoretically more exact BUT the current implementation of it is both the most simple to use in comparison to others AND it disadvantages underweight masts without banning them. This is actually a situation that is most attractive to us. We maintain a large freedom of design while favouring mast that are on the edge of the rule.

The current tipweight of 6.5 kg is still workable, but a tipweight of 6.0 kg seems to adress all desires and needs best. It also draws back in the largest portions of Stealth sailors into the F16 class without a need to modify their masts.

F16 theortical mast (tipweight rule at 6.0 kg) ; overall weight 13 kg ; tipweight 6.0 kg's :righting min = 57 kg
Difference to Alu superwing ; about 3 kg in overall weight and about 1.5 kg in tipweight. : righting min = 70 kg
Difference in moment of enertia of the whole rig (including sails and stays) between theoretical carbon and Alu superwing = 10%-15 %

These difference are all but considered neglectable from a performance point of view. Buying a new jib every year makes more difference.

IMPORTANT :

We are not likely to dispensate any boats. One rule applies to all. As a class we need to show that we keep things strickt and fair. Currently there is also no party campaigning for dispensation.


FOLLOW-UP PATH :

As promised the outcome of the earlier votes guides the follow-up path.

We still a have few days for the e-mail votes to come in, but if they don't then the class body will assume that everybody will accept the decision that will be made by the F16 class body (local class heads and myself). If the votes continiues to balance out than then the above compromise of 6.0 kg tipweight will be proposed and campaigned.

If you want to make your case either in favour or against of any alternative then you chance is now. Before Februari 2005 is over the decision on tipweights will be made and it will be final for the next years.


ADDITIONAL COMMENTS :

If no more class rules issue are open after this one than the F16 class is considering fixing the rule set for the next 3 to 5 years. Take NOTE !

We, the class and the builders, want to create utmost stability in the glass for 2005 and the years following. Some major things are going to happen and we all feel that the F16 concept and F16 class rules are now well defined and well developped.

So anybody who has any idea's about this, let him or her speak up now as within the month we will close the windown of opportunity for a long time.


Regards,


Wouter Hijink

Chairman Formula 16 class

Reactions coming in after 18 feb will be ignored.


Wouter

"...The opinion of the F16 class body is that tens of other design differences between different F16 makes give cause to theoretical differences like that on the water these are noticeable. ..."

Should read

"...The opinion of the F16 class body is that in a formula framework there are tens of other design related differences that give cause to as many theoretical differences of similar magnitude but that don't give rise to noticeable speed differences on the water ..." The F18 class proved that ...


Wouter

Another dumb question. Does anybody know where I can find the Formula 16 Class Rules?

Mary,
The rules can be found on the F16 website at the following url:-

http://www.formula16.org/

Regards,
Phill

Wow, there is a website! Thanks, Phill. When Wouter started this post asking for input on the rules, he didn't mention where to FIND the rules.

For the benefit of new people interested in the class (and for the benefit of us older, brain-damaged people) it would be nice if class officers would list the web site when they are making posts related to the class.

It appears there is no such a thing as "membership" in the class, so who were the people who voted on the original rules, and who would be eligible to vote if a change is proposed?

There are a myriad of boats that fit into the class specifications, including my own Hobie Wave. So how would I go about joining the class so I can vote on things? (My mast is very light, and I want to make sure I don't have to put more weight on the top of it.)

Mary,
Wouter has a nailed up post at the top of the forum. In that post there is abit of an intro about the forum which includes the website URL for anyone that would like to learn a little more about the F16 Class.
As that nailed up post is mostly about how to use the forum if you already know that you may not bother to read it all to find the URL that is right at the end. Maybe a nailed up post with just the URL in it would be a good move?

Have you ever thought that your Wave may also fit into the A class box rule as well as the F14. These box rules usually just specify maximums. I don't remember any minimums. The conncept of the F16 class revolves around inclusiveness. It had never occurred to me that A Hobie Wave could join in F16 racing. How heavy is the wave?

As far as voting goes.
In the vote for the original rule set we asked all persons with a genuine interest in the F16 class and its concepts to cast a vote.

Aha. That is why I never noticed it. Only the forum administer, Rick, is able to post a sticky at the top of a forum, so I assumed it was something Rick had put on there just to explain how the forum works. So I never paid any attention to it. Turns out Rick stuck it there for Wouter. But also, Rick apparently has never read it himself, because he didn't know what the website was, either.

And, yes, of course, I am aware that the Wave fits into the A-Class specs. I have often thought about how happy the A-Class would be to have a bunch of Waves come to their Nationals.

The Wave weighs 245 lbs.

Mary,
I thought your Wave may have had to carry weights to make the min weight but at 245 Pounds (equals 111.13 Kilograms) you make it.

Ehh yes, and it has been there since 2001. It is the same website that is listed in the catsailor "geat links" section with the wrong link and we tried to get that adjusted for the last 2 years. And even recently, on Ricks general request on the forum, I have send him an e-mail asking to list the correct websadres. The www.formula16.org adress. Neither the less since 2001 we have a dummy website at the wrong link to make sure people can find us.




You did think to look :

-1- in your own catsailor great links section
-2- in the post on top of the F16 forum with the subject "New to the Formula 16 forum ? Read this !"
-3- type in "Formula 16 catamarans" in www.google.com
-4- simply type in www.formula16.com or www.formula16.org in your browser.

All four approaches would have landed you at the class rules within 3 steps.

How much easier can a class make it ?





There is a permanent post right at the top of the F16 class forum with the subject "New to the Formula 16 forum ? Read this !" that lists the website and contact info together with other important information.

I do understand that eyes and brains have to register this first before action can be taken by the hand moving the mouse but I feel I'm sort of at the end of what we can do to make it even more easier, accessible and more "in front of your nose" than it is now. (teasing you here a bit !)






Membership is free of charge and has been since 2001. We do thing a little different at the F16 class. Typically I only ask membership fees in the shape of volunteer work that helps the class. Up till now this has suited us really well.

The people who voted for the orginal rule set where all F16 owners. Only 1 vote per F16 boat allowed. There were some 50 votes back then. All verified with boat make and boat numbers.

For less important votes we simply allow anybody to vote that has some interests in F16 class. So owners, crews, to-be-owners and people taking a serious interest in the class.

Up till now this has never caused us any problems as votes are always well prepared in advance and the guys/gals scanning this forum behave themselfs very admirably.

As a class we also have no qualms about redoing a vote when a single party questions the accuracy or dependability. As a class we know who owns boats and with what sail numbers and sails with which crew. With this listing we can easily check up on the voters.





Like I said for the important votes you need to specify your boat type and sailnumber. You can still vote and we'll look at these votes as well but as a class we do weight them accordingly to your "F16-ness". It is often quite clear if somebody wants only wants to spike the vote or is serious about it.

As said before the F16 class is a little bit different. We don't have "a majority vote decides the outcome" structure. This is to prevent "Tiger OD"-sation of the F16 class where say a large group of one particular F16 makes highjacks the vote and favours their own designs.

The F16 class is run with a group of engineers, boatbuilders and experienced sailors. This committee decides things along the lines set out in the rules. This means that majority support must be sough when ever possible but never to the detriment of loss in equality, fairness, survival and continuation of the formula rule set that allows maximum freedom to tinker to individual sailors.

The F16 also doesn't want to go the way of the F18 class were they have rules that limit how light a daggerboard may be and set it at an adsurd high level. As a class we don't want to measure daggerboard weight, nor do we think it matters AT ALL in performance what they weight and my 2 kg glass daggerboard is both cheaper and stronger than any 3 kg F18 board. So what was the purpose of this F18 rule again ? To ease the minds of scared weekend warriors who aren't competitive anyway, even if they tried really hard. Sometimes the decisions need to be left to the people that understand the situation and the designs.

Some call this undemocratic. I call it darn smart. Did I tell you about the time that 70 % of the members voted down the Tornado upgrades or the time where Tiger members vote down each F18 upgrade to it so there is no Tiger class in Europe anymore ?

Having said this, we in the F16 class do really try to explain the issues as good as we can before we hold the vote. We want to educate people and allow them to understand what is going on. So you can't call this a dictatorship as well. We are somewhere in between. Actually we are more how 90 % of the businesses are run. There you don't lay the future direction of the company in the hands (Brain) of the Janitor as well despite the fact that it is often very wise to really listen to what he has to say.

F16 class is different. And we have a reason for that. We are fighting some big powerful competition out there that don't like nothing better than to seel you 150 kg singlehanders cobbled together from left over F18 parts. Also we are bringing advances in sail design within reach of mainstream sailors. Things like wingmast. That was something that was about to be lost in the loud screaming of F18's and Tornado's, both of which still haven't caught on to wingmasts.

In way the F16 class is a project and a show case of what can be done when you put your mind to it. It is also a great show case that the use of carbon does not have to be expensive as we are made to believe. In many cases it is just smart. In other cases its use is not smart.

Recently I discovered one remarkable thing. We have differences in tipweight of 1 kg in the F18 class and nobody gives a darn. We had the same differences in tipweight between alu and carbon in the F16 class and halve the class feels uncompetitive. Luckily the F16 class is a class with a few capable designers and engineers and they spot these things and this difference in their rightful place.

Anyway I'm on a tangent here and I should stop before I bore you guys

Wouter

If you want to race f16's on first in wins while sailing a wave then I'm not going to stop you.

As a matter of fact a crate of best californian wine if you win the race !

Inclusiveness all the WAY (or WAVE !)

Wouter

(P.S. will have a 150 % finish time cut-off)

I see on the F-16 website that it says the F16 class fits into the A-Class and can race with them boat for boat. We had hoped that would be the case when we got our Taipan 4.9, but turned out the Taipan is about 2(?) inches too wide. I suppose that is true of all the boats that are built to the maximum-width spec of the Formula 16 class?

If so, perhaps that representation should be removed from the F-16 web site, or modified.

Right now, after reading all the class rules, the big problem I have with them is that they appear to be written to create what is, in essence, a new one-design class with various manufacturers that have slightly different hull designs.

It looks intimidating for home builders and too restrictive to allow much creativity in sail plans and other features of the boat. And I do not get a feeling that it is "welcoming" to other classes that are not fully F-16 compliant but that fit within the specifications.

I think to get an F-16 class going in the U.S. (it certainly is not going yet), it would be nice to come up with a list of all the existing classes that are potentially compliant with F-16 rules and invite them to Open F-16 Events.

The mast-tip-weight issue may be of interest to manufacturers of new boats and masts, but it is a real turn-off when you are trying to get people to come out and race in a new class.

Geez, Wouter, you didn't have to waste two pages of text to just tell me you think I am an idiot. I was just pointing out that if you don't put the web site right in front of people's faces all the time, they are not going to go to the trouble of searching for it. Basic marketing.

I was teasing you a bit there ; note the smiley.

I understand what you are saying

Wouter

This is not totally true. This has been discussed previously as well, and has proven that the F16 class in the US is growing strong.

I am a total newb to the F16 class, and all classes at that. But I am a future Blade F16 owner. There is plenty of F16's around the US and plenty of action for us as well. The F16's are invited to the GPYC A cat nationals, thats something HUGE for the class, I also pretty sure they were invited last year as well.

The Blade F16 is being built locallly by Vector Works Marine. They tested the prototype at Tradewinds. Did you miss it by any chance? Jennifer Lindsay won on a Taipan 4.9 which is F16 compliant. Now she will go to California and compete for the Walter Cup in a Tiger F18.

Those are a few that I can mention off the top of my head, I am sure there is a lot more to talk about this. But saying that the F16 class has nothing going on in US is pretty vague and is a total blanket statement that has been proven wrong.

Well, Robi, your enthusiasm will certainly help. The BIG thing that will help is the fact that we now have a U.S. builder. Vectorworks Marine is ready and willing to mass-produce the Blade, a lightweight, high performance 16-footer. We have needed a boat in that category for a long time. And the fact that it can be sailed singlehanded or doublehanded just by varying the sail plan that comes with the boat is a major plus.

If the Blade is a huge success, the question will be whether it will become a big one-design class on its own that does not even need or care to be a part of the Formula 16 class.

By the way, I haven't heard anything about the A-Class Nationals being held at Gulfport Yacht Club in St. Pete. It is listed as A-Class/F16 Uni Gulf Coast Championship. It is my understanding that they race as separate fleets. But even if the A-Class decided to have that venue as their Nationals, what would that have to do with the F-16 Class?

Hi Robi,
I agree with Mary.., your enthusiasm should really help. And if it were not for Jennifer there would probably be no class at all.

Just to clarify, Jennifer sailed in the F18 Class at the Tradewinds.., there was no F16 Class.
And while there seems to be some F16s around, the problem seems to be that they never travel to regattas, therefore most racing with these boats is in the Open Portsmouth Class.

What the F16 Class needs to do is use this forum or a get an email list going so that everyone is prompted to go to certain regattas in order to make a class. That is what we do with the Waves and it works pretty well.
Pretty simple to email 10 or 12 people and suggest the Tradewinds, Jetty Park, Gulfport, or whatever and get a poll on who will be attending. If no one wants to travel, then scratch that event and try for another.

"The F16's are invited to the GPYC A cat nationals, thats something HUGE for the class..."
This is NOT the A-Cat Nationals, rather the A-Cat Gulf Championship and there are only 4 of them registered. And if our F16 was so strong we would have more than 4 F16s registered as well. I will make up the 5th boat, if I can make it. Looking good at the time.

I was pretty pumped about the F16 Class but have been pretty disappointed with attendance in the last couple of years. I hope between you and Jennifer ya'll can get everyone excited again.

Rick

Sorry for the A cat screwup, should have looked more into it, before posting. It is the Gulf Coast championship and NOT the nationals.

And yes, that is my intention to try to promote the class locally. I will do my part in traveling to a good ammount of venues. I already have a few marked on my calendar, only problem is, I really do not know when I will get my boat. Could be the end of Feb, or could be the end or March. I hope the sooner is more feasable. I havent heard anything from Matt.

I already have the registration form filled out, all I have to do is mail it out, I am holding off, because I do not know when I will be able to pick up the boat.
See you on the water.

Hi Mary, Glad you asked these questions, I might be well qualified to answer at least one of them, but will attempt an answer at both :

You wrote :
"I see on the F-16 website that it says the F16 class fits into the A-Class and can race with them boat for boat. We had hoped that would be the case when we got our Taipan 4.9, but turned out the Taipan is about 2(?) inches too wide. I suppose that is true of all the boats that are built to the maximum-width spec of the Formula 16 class?"

The Taipan is in fact narrower than the maximum allowed beam, Taipan is 2,34m, max. beam is 2,5m, so the Taipan is 16mm narrower. I don`t believe the web-site states that the F16 class fits within the A-class rules, which I think you are getting at, but given their very similar performances as per most semi-reliable handicapping systems (ie the European ones ) they should be able to sail the same course and compete with one another on an equal basis, ie their handicaps are equal or as close as dammit. Of course this would not happen often as when there is a large fleet of either A-class or F16 I`m sure they would prefer their own start, but it`s handy when there are a few of each class to put hem on the same course, same start and see who can come up with the win. It helps build bigger fleets out of similar performance boats, much the same way as F18 has done, just with smaller boats !
Of course, building or buying a boat that is at the maximum spec allowed will ensure a competitive boat within the class, in as much as modifying an older design will be less-than-ideal but will provide a good platform with which to "get involved". This has been done by a sailor in California, John Metzig, who has converted a Nacra 5.0 to F16. (search F16 forum for "Nacra F16"

"It looks intimidating for home builders and too restrictive to allow much creativity in sail plans and other features of the boat. And I do not get a feeling that it is "welcoming" to other classes that are not fully F-16 compliant but that fit within the specifications. "

In terms of creativity with sailplans etc, if you mean the Hooter, the design of this sail prevents it from being classified as a spinnaker as it`s mid-girth measurement isn`t 75% of it`s foot length, a specification required by ISAF, not the F16 class. If you sail with a Hooter they (ISAF) classify it as a headsail and you get penalised with a frightening handicap since you have a massive jib which can be used upwind in light airs, and they`re probably right in penalising the Hooter this way, since it seems Rick has proven that this is the case. Unfortunately you can`t use it upwind in strong conditions, if you could we`d all have one and Rick would be a wealthy man. !
On the issue of inclusiveness, the South African and Australian Mosquito classes have been included as dispensated boats within the class, even though we have smaller rigs and are under the min. weight. This means we can hold F16 regattas as long as we invite any fully-compliant F16 design to race with us. What this has done for us from a SA perspective is that we have invited the Hobie 16 sailors and for that matter the Dart 18 sailors who wish to sail with spinnakers to sail with us on a no-handicap basis, first in wins. You could view this as a non-professional approach, to which I`d agree, but one which gets more sailors on the water at our club and in our region. Regrettably the Hobie sailors don`t look ready to join us on two counts but that`s a separate issue which needs no introduction here.
Of course it would make no sense to arrive at a F16 regatta such as a worlds or national event with a Mosquito or a Hobie 16 with spinnaker as you`d be uncompetitive, but it provides the stepping stones for those interested.
What it has done in SA is create awareness that the F16 class exists, and that sailing 16ft cats with spinnakers is good fun and as inclusive as it can get, without having to live the "one-design dream".

What it has acchieved in Australia is that sailors like Gary Maskiell has been introduced to F16 through being a Mosquito sailor, and has built an amazing boat which is pretty much as fast as an F16 is going to get, without spending a fortune.

And so the class grows.

Steve

Thanks Steve. I had already re-read what it says on the F-16 web site and realized it apparently is referring to handicap racing.
And no, I was not referring to the Hooter. I was referring to all the older and smaller classes that could fit into the F-16 class either as is or with modifications. The litany of rules and measurements is very intimidating to me. It sounds like an attempt to create a one-design class that happens to allow various hull styles from various manufacturers. Maybe that is the intent.

But since you mention the Hooter, I am now curious as to what ISAF has to do with sail measurements. The Formula 16 class is not an ISAF class, is it? And neither is the Taipan 4.9. And the Portsmouth modification factor is the same for all large headsails -- spinnaker, genoa, gennaker, reacher, Hooter, etc. -- which indicates that the person doing the handicapping must think they are all equally beneficial.

Heck, if the reason for not allowing the Hooter instead of a spinnaker is fear that it will be used upwind in light air, why can't that just be made illegal to do when racing in class? And then supposedly it is a detriment, isn't it -- having all that windage wrapped around the stay?

My only personal interest in the Hooter is that I think it would make the F-16 class more appealing to women, older people and kids.

P.S. What did you mean about Rick proving something about the Hooter? He has only raced one time against other Formula 16's, and he can't even remember whether he used the spinnaker or the Hooter, but he didn't do very well, because it was two men on the boat and crew weight was over 400 lbs.

Hi Mary,

Fair point, on the surface it doesn't seem as though ISAF does a great deal, especially for grass-roots sailing and catamaran sailing. But among other things ISAF administers the Racing Rules of Sailing which governs almost every competitive sailing event (can't think of one that doesn't but I'm sure they exist) and whether we are an ISAF registerd/recognised/sanctioned/whatever class, we are racing governed by their rules - which include sail measurement and designation to my knowledge.

If that were true, no development or experimentation would be possible. A class can set whatever rules (or lack of them) it wants to regarding sails. If the class wants to approve a spinnaker that is shaped like an hourglass, so be it.

If a class decides to become an ISAF International or Recognized Class, then their class rules are kind of set in stone. If an ISAF class wants to make a change, they have to first vote on it as a class and then get approval from ISAF to make the change.

The RRS are the rules of racing, not of design and development.

If I am wrong about this, I will drop out of sailing and take up knitting.

You mean like one of those...um, formula classes?



Mark.

I guess I don't know what a formula class is. I always think of it as being very simplistic and allowing for great latitude in development and creativity, like with the Formula 14 Class. My idea of a formula class is maximum width, maximum length, maximum sail area, minimum boat weight.

As long as you stay within the sail area, why can't you have a biplane rig, a gaff rig, a lateen rig, a kite, or whatever? And why do you require the boat to have two rudders? If there were still any Dingos around, the F-16 rules would preclude it because it has one rudder in the center. There is an old design in Europe that does not have any rudders at all -- and they still race, the last I heard.

What is the point of a Formula class that is as restrictive as a one-design class?

Mary where were you when I was seeking a box rule development class as the F16 rules?

Unfortunately the only box rule classes I know of in cats are the original International classes A, B, C and D As well as the 18 Sq (I haven't read the F14 rules).

The reason the majority didnt go this rule route was, the idea we wanted to be able to sail at a similar rating as the F18s. Thus it was required to have a similar handicap using the major handicaping systems used currently. Seems the Texal system has a very convoluted way of "mathematically" assigning a rating to a boat. Anything outside of its simplistic ideology is heavily penalised.
For example of the "Hooter" would drop the F16 rating unrealisically low. So instead of racing a F18 boat for boat we would be starting almost with the new rigged Tornado.

Comparing Formula classes and one design.
Formula classes arent quite as restrictive as a one design. The Blade F18, Capricorn F18, Nacra F18 and the Tiger F18 are strickingly different designs.
Typically a one design has a series of measurement points along the hull and allow for builders errors only. They may have set point and measurements on the rigging and sails as well.
Then one has SMOD which require every hull to come from a mold or an exact copy of one mold. With every aspect of the oat strictly covered and generally supplied by the manufacturer.

Stewart

That might be true in Europe and anyplace that uses Texel, but it is not true in the United States where we use Portsmouth and the headsails are all rated equally.

And what difference does it make anyway? The rating is only important if you are racing on handicap, so if you are racing on handicap under the Texel system, why would you use a Hooter? You would use the spinnaker. Isn't it just a matter of common sense to use the sail that gives you the best rating?

And when racing within the Formula 16 class, you could use either sail, but with a rule that you cannot use a reacher-type sail upwind.

What is the problem with that? It would be no problem in the United States. In fact, it would be no problem anywhere as long as you are racing as a class, because ratings are not involved -- class rules prevail.

Mary here are the registered and incorporated class rules for the F14 in Australia (the International F14 catamaran association -I.F.C.A-)
The “Box rule” governing an F14 catamaran is
The craft must be a catamaran, having two identical hulls of equal volume, with the rudders attached at/to the transom/s, i.e. not extended out from the stern of the craft so as to effectively “extend” the waterline length of the hull/s.
1. Length Over All.
L.O.A. of the hulls (excluding only “T foils, rudders, all rudder fittings, and spinnaker pole with fittings) 14’ 1 1/4” 4.3 metres
2. Maximum Beam (Overall)
8’ 2 1/4” 2.46 metres
3. Mast Height
Mast height is unrestricted, although the mast can only form a percentage of the mainsail area of no more than 15%, albeit that the circumference of the mast shall not exceed 400mm, i.e. no “solid” wing mast/sail (articulated or not).
The sail(s) shall be of a single “laminate” fabric.
4. Maximum Sail Area
The sail(s), including half the area of the mast bounded by the luff length of the main sail without having any wrinkles or folds, shall not exceed 296 sq feet. 27.50 sqm
Albeit that the maximum allowable area of a spinnaker/reacher shall be no more than
148 sq feet 13.75 sqm
and the combined “working sail(s)” including half the area of the mast bounded by the luff length of the main sail shall not exceed 148 sq feet 13.75 sqm
The maximum total area includes the combination of the areas of ALL sails plus half the area of the mast bounded by the luff length of the main sail. The measurements of all the sails shall be by the calculation of the “actual” sail area.
5. Construction
Materials are unrestricted
6. Minimum Weight
All up sailing weight, excluding only the crew. 165.35 lb (imp) 75Kg
7. “T” foils
(As opposed to “hydrofoils”) used only for the stablelization of pitch, and only of a symmetrical profile, without having any adjustment to the angle of “attack” of the foils whilst sailing (i.e. not independent of the movement of the hulls), and only if attached to, or forming part of the rudders, or attached to the underside of the hull(s) within 300mm 0f the transom(s), are
allowed. No foil(s) shall protrude to any point wider than the maximum allowable beam of the class (i.e. 2.46 metres).
“Hydrofoils” that are used to “lift” the hull(s) due to the forward movement through the water of the catamaran, (i.e. these foils are of an asymmetric profile, designed to generate
upwards lift by the action of their movement through the water), are not allowed.
8. Built in buoyancy
Closed cell foam is required to be fixed internally in the hulls, sufficient to maintain the vessel, and its crew, in the upright position, with the hulls at, or above the surface of the water, when one or both hulls are completely full of water. (Safety rule)
9. Centre/Dagger boards, Rudders and Hulls.
The centre/dagger boards shall be set at 90 degrees side to side of the hulls (but not necessarily fore and aft) to a line projected across the catamaran between the centre of the centre/dagger board cases and only be movable in the vertical plane, either up and down in a straight line or “swung” aft and upwards as in pivoting centre boards I.E. sides way cantered or sides way outwardly raked foils are not allowed. The same applies to the rudders I.E. the rudders shall only be set vertical to the hull(s) and the hulls shall also, not be “angled”, but be parallel to each other in the vertical plane.
10. Number and weight of crew
Weight and number of crew is unrestricted, (with reference to “Crew and Crew Weight” in the preceding section of the class rules)
11. Spinnaker pole
Any spinnaker pole and/or fittings shall not protrude further forward of the forward most point of the bows (measured at 90 degrees from the centre of a line connecting the two most forward parts of the bows of each hull), by more than one metre.
12. From time to time
By an agreed vote by the executive of the F14 catamaran association, those catamarans that do not fit within the preceding “box rule” definitions (from item no 1. through to item 11. inclusive) may be allowed inclusion to sail/compete with and against all those catamarans that comply to the afore mentioned items, 1. through to and including item 11, by being afforded an appropriate handicap/rating, designed to keep all racing results fair and equitable between the different “classes” of catamarans so competing.

Sorry, Darryl, I was talking about the Formula 14 rules as I think they were approved in the United States (and they are probably not incorporated or registered).
FORMULA 14 CLASS RULES VOTE

1. Maximum Hull Length: 14’ 3”

2. Maximum Mast Length: 24’

3. Maximum Beam – Open

4. Maximum Sail Area – 300sqft in any configuration.

5. 1 or more Crew

6. Everything else open

(I'm not sure of the reason for #5 unless it is to prevent operating the boat by remote control.)

Mary,
In broard terms the objective of the Formula 16 class, as is also with the F18 class, is to provide a framework that will enable people to sail boats of similar performance but from different manufacturers.

When you look at the rules it does allow sail plans that differ. This is evident when you compare the sail plan of the Stealth and the Taipan or even the Blade. They are different but at the same time they have similarities.

If the sail plans were vastly different then the outcome of a race would be more likely decided by the sail plans versus conditions rather than skipper versus skipper.

Now if the rules were left more open than currently provided and enough people were willing to spend enough money over a long enough period of time experimenting with vastly different sail plans they are likely to end at a similar sail plan. Not the same but similar. This is essentially what has happened in the A class.

Would people enter the class knowing that the sail plan they buy is likely to be outdated half way thru the season?

Would the class survive that development?

The F16 class rules were written in a manner that we belived would give the F16 class the best possible chance to survive and prosper.
This was our hope.

Regards,
Phill

Mary.. Great point.. Now if you could convince the US sailing Admin to talk to the Aussie, South Africian and European admins to come up with a universal system I would appreciate it!..

Unfortunately each area and almost each country has its own "rating sytem" some are Portsmouth based other formulae based..

What difference does it make? I guess it all depends on numbers.. If there are the numbers to race as a fleet then no difference.. However if one, like I do, has to race in a mixed fleet the rating system is important..

Hi Mary,
"P.S. What did you mean about Rick proving something about the Hooter? He has only raced one time against other Formula 16's, and he can't even remember whether he used the spinnaker or the Hooter, but he didn't do very well, because it was two men on the boat and crew weight was over 400 lbs."
My apology, I understood from reading Rick`s reports on the Hooter when using it on the Wave that it can be used upwind in light airs, as well as his write-up on the Hooter on your web-page in which he describes it`s benefits. I don`t know if he`s used it with success on the Taipan, but if it works on other boats it should do the same. Others on the F14 forum have also claimed similar benefits of the Hooter.

"I was referring to all the older and smaller classes that could fit into the F-16 class either as is or with modifications. The litany of rules and measurements is very intimidating to me. It sounds like an attempt to create a one-design class that happens to allow various hull styles from various manufacturers. Maybe that is the intent."

I think that the aims of the F16 class are exactly opposite of what you have in mind : With the rules as they are, based largely on the F18 ruleset, a "class" has been created which should allow boats of very similar performance to sail against one another on an equal basis. This means the rules need to be quite tightly set up & controlled. I really admire those who say "give me an open formula boxrule class", I`d like to see boats develop this route, but I would never get involved due to the costs. It`s working for the US guys now because they`re all modifying old H14`s at low cost, but if someone built an all-carbon boat to the max. specs allowed in the boxrule, it would be lapping the H14`s on the first lap, and that is not fair racing. It then becomes an arms race, and F14 disappears as fast as it was born. This is not what the F16 group wants to happen. This is why carefully chosen rules that really affect performance have been implemented, and why the minimum tip weight rule is now under discussion.

Regarding the "one-design" feeling you get from the rules, this is not the case at all - you can enter a 14ft boat that fits into the boxrule and satisfies all other criteria if you believe it would be capable of winning.
In reality all competitive boats will have similar dimensions and even hull shapes, rig configurations etc, as these have been proven over time. Some new ideas that have been tested in other classes will find their way into F16 boats, and maybe some innovations will happen in the class and be used by other classes.

On the issue of being ISAF compliant, even if we`re not a registered class, we have been issued an ISAF SCHRS recognised handicap, allowing us to race worldwide against a large group of other cat classes on an internationally recognised and accepted handicapping system. As far as I`m aware, the US is practically the only country that is still hanging on to the type of system you have - perhaps you guys feel it`s a better system, and I`m not raising that issue here, all I`m saying is that there are benefits from an international sailing point of view that the US system cannot accommodate, and which ISAF covers easily.
Furthermore the F16 class is essentially made up of several classes that are ISAF recognised such as Spitfire, Stealth etc, and so their class rules include the mid-girth measurement for their spinnakers. Should F16 allow Hooters and these prove to be superior to spinnakers, the sailors of these classes would have to own (and replace from time to time) both types of headsails in order to sail both class legal events and F16 events. This would push the cost of sailing an F16 boat up, which is not the intention of the class.
The fact that the F16 class is an International class of like-minded sailors on 16ft boats means that sometimes we just aren`t going to do things the American way !!

Cheers
Steve

This is actually one reason why the F16 has the misgirth spi rule.

We didn't want to end up with multiple localized and incompatible F16 classes.

So in the very beginning, we (Kirt Simmons, Phill Brander, John Pierce and myself) looked for the setup that was acceptable to all regions and to all organisations and we went with that.

I think we really did good there as South Africa, Europe and Asia all use ISAF or Texel. And Europe includes the UK this time. Only USA and Aus use yardstick system but of a different kind. Neither system specified how to measure a sail or what a spinnaker of hooter is. ISAF or the other hand did and ISAF (+Texel) is also the organisation that trains and maintains measurers.

By linking ourselfs to ISAF regulations we didn't have a need to form, train and maintain a seperate group of regulations and measurers. Now we can make use of the existing structures formed for the F18, F20, A-cat and other classes.

Formula 16 will be the same the whole world over, no exceptions. If we ever are going to have international sailing in the F16 class than unity between local branches is an absolute requirement.

The other important reason is of course that everybody loves "wide open class rules" as a spectator and as a discussion topic but only 5% or less likes to sail under such rules. By going for a Formula setup over a "simple set of 4 or 5 limits" we are far more attractive to a larger portion of the sailing public and therefor have a greater potential.


Wouter

A few things to note


Sailing with a hooter type of headsail under BOTH texel AND ISAF would force us to sail of a rating that is faster than the M20 and that is also probably the fastest rating for cats under 22 feet. It is not only Texel who does this. It is the ISAF system as well. We are of course an international class and these things, however unfair, should be taken into account.

Further of the original open classes : A, B, C, D and 18 sq. NONE except the C-class exist in their orgininal form. A-cats have introduced extra rules limited foiling etc. And the B, D, 18 sq. classes are pretty much dead or never got of the ground. The C-class of course is way out of reach of normal sailors and currently only 4 boats in the whole world are in ready to sail condition. When we compare this to F18, F20, F16, F18HT and even the new F14 we see a clear trend. Both sailors and builders like freedom and they like to tinker with their boats as wel but they DON'T like wide open class rules.

The F16 class specified from the beginning that we wanted to be a regatta boat (= open class handicap racing everywhere except the US) and that she wanted to race first in wins with F18's on a fair basis. This meant that we had to be veru comparable in setup to the F18 setup to avoid being to different in performance to make racing unfair to either one of us. This together with the ISAF regulations lead to the inclusion of the mid grith spi rule.

In order of openess and allowing creativity the list is (going from restrictive to open)

-1- SMOD classes : H16, Dart 18, etc
-2- OD classes : Tornado, Taipan, etc
-3- Formula classes : F18, F20, F16, A-cats, etc
-4- Open classes : A-class (not the same as A-cats anmore !) , B-class, C-class, D-class and unlimited class.

Note how a design made within the old A-class box rule as specified by ISAF years ago may NOT be compliant with current A-cat class rules ! Arguable the A-cat class rules are still the most open of the formula class rules but they are more and more edging their way to a formula structure.

So the F16 class is pretty high on the list of allowing creativity and differences between designs. At least more so than SMOD and OD classes but also with respect to F18 and F20 classes which use more rules and restrict more. They even specify the minimum weight of daggerboards and such. Things the F16 class does not do.

Wouter

I can assure everybody that the reason for having the mid grith spi rule, that seems to exclude hooters, was not included to ban hooters. The banning of these is a (regretable ?) side-effect

The reason for its inclusion are unrelated to the hooter sail design; also I don't think any of us (Kirt, Phill, John and myself) would have included it if we weren't forced to do so by some important rating systems and our choice to level race F18's on a fair basis. The last class has this mid girth rule as well.

I just want to make this clear.

Wouter

Wouter,

I have not read the F16 rules, but I assume



I assume this rule puts a limit on the aspect ratio of the Spi ?

And what is the F16 Mid girth rule ? (sorry to ask you to re-produce something that is in the F16 rule book

Sorry Mary,

But ISAF indeed specifies things like how sails are to be measured and what must be included and what must not. Of course a class MAY choose to do it differently but then it needs to create and administer their own framework. That adds a whole lot of work to running a class AND thus put us in collision course with Race Committees and other classes at regatta's.

You are right, there is a rudderless catamaran in Europe that has a active class and hold class races. However I would like to see anyone get that boat a starting permit in any significant regatta like the Round Texel. The RC will just deny you one as they are unwilling to take the increased risk of being held responsible when things go wrong. And I can't blame them. How do you explain to a non-sailing judge that "the boat could safely navigate a distance race on the open sea with a very crowded 500 boats startline and WITHOUT rudders".

We must remember that political issues like that sometimes necessitate class rules that otherwise don't seem to have a reason for their inclusion. In some instances we had to include them or people in certain nations simply wouldn't want anything to do with the F16 class. Right now, they do.

Our goal in the F16 class is to sail and race no matter what happens. Show up at any event and sail, Crew calling off? you sail solo, Girlfriend wanted to come along you sail doublehanded, 5 knots or 25 knots, class or open class. That is why we focus on the 1-up/2-up versatility, garanteed seaworthyness and level racing with the biggest class around, the F18's. This directly lead to boats that weight 107 kg overall instead of 90 kg or 130 kg and this lead to rules with respect to mid girth width and having a (redundant) double rudder system.

Wouter

Section 7 ; article 23

7.23 Gennaker girth

The distance at mid-height, between the mid point of the gennaker luff and the mid point of the gennaker leech.

Also know as mid-girth rule after "MID height - GIRTH" rule


This measurement is then used in :

Section 1 ; paragraph 14 - article 3 (SMG - Mid hight Girth measurement)


1.14.3 The gennaker must satisfy the following two shape and size conditions :


SMG > 75% * SF

Gennaker sail area = SF * (SL1+SL2) / 4 + (SMG-SF/2) * (SL1+SL2) / 3 =< 17,50 sq. mtr.

Where :

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

* SF is the length of the foot of the sail 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 measured along the edge 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.



It is not intended by any party to be a limit on the aspect ratio of the spi although it does limit it some as a side effect. The only intention of the mid-girth rule is to make a distinction between jibs (and addition headsail like boom jibs) and spinnakers. They are both triangular sails and are both ahead of the mast. However one can only be set on courses below a reach while the other can be set on all course. Somebody in the past decided that a mid height width measurement would be a good disciminator between the two types of headsails and used that to make up the definition of a spinnaker (gennaker)

We are still stuck with that definition.

By the way ; there is not a single beach catamaran class that allows anything else than 75 % mid girth spinnakers. Not the F18's, Not the F20, not the Tornado's, not the M20's, not the I-17's, not the FX-one's, not even the US nacra 6.0NE class that has no following outside of the US. The F16 class is not unique with regard to this mid girth rule.


Wouter

So would or would not my Hobie Wave with Hooter be allowed to race as a Formula 16?

What is your pole length ?

What is the overall area of your spi/hooter ?

What is your spi hound height (gate height) on your mast ?

What is your mid-girth measurement ?


That are the only 4 limits that are set on the use of any headsail. Be it either a spi, a gennaker, a hooter, or an (as you wrote) hour glass shaped headsail.


With regard to the Hobie Wave I need to know the specs that are ruled upon in the F16 class rules. Things like mastheight, width, length, weight, combined sailarea, luff lengths, etc.

If the Wave fails on any of these accounts than it is not Full F16 Compliant HOWEVER you can appeal to sections 5 and 6 of the class rules that allow the grandfathering of your Wave:

This is defined as :



7.26 Grandfathering

The allowing of non Formula 16 compliant designs to race against fully compliant Formula 16 designs


In summary it comes down to showing that your boat has a rating equal or slower than F16's (and implicitly F18's as well) under BOTH the ISAF and TEXEL handicap systems and requesting a dispensation for your non complaince with the local F16 class head. That is when officially accepting to race "First-in-wins" with any and all other F16 and dispensated F16 designs.

Up till now we haven't refuse anyone. And I suspect that the Wave may just be on the right side of the ISAF/TEXEL rating threshold even with a non-compliant F16 headsail.


Wouter

Wouter, I still don't know what you mean by "level racing with the F18's, the biggest class around." Since they are the biggest class around, aren't they racing as a class? They don't allow the F16's to race with them in the class, do they, since you don't fit their class weightwise?

And if you are racing against them on handicap, what difference does it make what sails anybody wants to use and what kind of rating they want to use. I just don't understand this interest in the handicap rating. Must be something different about how you do handicap racing in Europe. Please explain that (briefly).

Mary,

I do very much understand your confusement.

The answer is twofold :

-1- F16 class is a class with the largest portion of its weight localized outside of the USA

-2- Racing outside of the USA is 80 % single fleet - open class racing, In Europe this is over 90 % or all cat racing.


The F16-racing-level-with-F18's aspect may not be that important for US sailors but it is for non-US sailors. In Europe all our club races, Cup races and regatta's are single fleet - open classes. If you have the same handicap as the F18's then you effectively race them first-in-wins for all trophies whether they like it or not. Same applies to racing the A-cats and they dislike it with a passion; that spinnaker does make a huge difference !

Even at (rare) events that contain designated class events, like point regatta's, the open-class single start fleet contains a multiple of unmeasured and unaffiliated F18's and F20's. These are crews without membership or without valid measurement forms. Even at these RARE events the open fleets range in size from 20 to 35 boats of which 70 % is still F18 and F20's. In Europe at least, realtively small classes like the A-cats as good as always share a start with another fleet and their score is then later filtered out of the larger score. In Europe we hardly ever give classes their own start and it is only seriously considered when the class requesting it takes care of all its own [censored] and when you can garantee that 15 boats of more are racing. But still 90 % of the races/events is "single fleet - open class" even if you come with more than 15 boats. Sometimes if a event attracts more than 80 boats in total a split is made between slow and fast boats and each is given their own start/course (completely seperated) but only is each class has at least 30 boats or more. It is regarded that this is more fair to the smaller boats out there as these are more often then not owned by recreational sailors. Makes racing for them more interesting.

In the Netherlands even the H16 doesn't get more than 2 events per year with their own start. Often it is only one event, their own nationals.

It is very different outside the US and as the F16 class is building herself up in all regions we target all local strongpoints together. For some regions this may seem strange, but it is all very easily explained. And it is actually very logical as well. If you want to be a true international class then you just have to do these things.

Australia isn;t much different, nor Asia. South Africa is somewhat different but even they do mingle fleets quite often. Pretty much sailors in all regions are positive about it. The more boats and crews you have beaten (even on handicap) the more glory you have gained. And people come out to events as they always race in a sizeable fleet. I truly think this is a contributing factor that cat sailing in Europe is on a sizeable level.

And it is difficult to explain to US sailors that a 4 or 5 boat fleet is not regarded as a class earning their own start outside the US. You REALLY have to put some high number of boats on the water in order to be regarded as a class that possible could entertain such thought and then still, most events won't give you your own start anyway.


Wouter

Having finally got round to reading the yearly review ans especially all the "Hoo - Ha" regarding carbon mast tip weights etc i've decided to ad my bit. I've owned a Stealth for 4 years and in all that time and with considerable amount of "mis-treatment" i've had NO problems. In fact the thing i like most about my Stealth mast is its light weight when rigging it. When i bought my boat the F16 class either didnt exist or was dormant but i've been prepared to go along with it on the understanding that my boat was fully legal to compete in F16 class racing but if this latest example of petulance and a need to show off one's engineering expertise is going to take place often then you can shove the class association where the sun doesnt shine ! I bet the other class associations must be laughing at us and our antics.
And as for the wit who said we wont run out of alloy try telling that to the Hurricane owner who hasnt had a mast for 6 months because there are no sections available and a minimum order that would be enough for 50 masts - he's trying to get a carbon mast as we speak !
STOP the petty point scoring and get on with something more constructive - PLEASE

Wouter, am I right in assuming that you are planning to ask for ISAF Conditional or International status for the F-16? Everything you are doing seems to point in that direction.

If so, are the manufacturers in favor of that? ISAF International Class status can be a burden on them and also raise the prices of the boats.

What are the benefits of having International Status, beyond being "allowed" to hold a World Championship?

With danger of hijacking the thread, do you need ISAF aproval to hold a World Championship in a non ISAF international approved class?

According to ISAF, you do. We already held a Worlds with our Wave Class. We were threatened that everybody who participated in or helped with the event would be punished by losing their eligibility to sail in major ISAF-sanctioned events like Olympics, Pan American Games and ISAF World Championships.

We were also told that the host country would never be allowed to become a National Governing Body for sailing and would never be able to put a boat in the Olympics.

ISAF claims to control sailing in all its forms throughout the world, racing and non-racing, and claims possession of the words "World" and "International."

I guess the answer to your question is that, No, you do not need ISAF approval to hold a world championship if you are not an ISAF Class and if nobody in that class cares whether they get punished by ISAF or not. But ISAF can make things very difficult for you by threatening the host country and threatening race officials and by scaring away people who might want to participate but are afraid of the sanctions because they DO want to be eligible for major ISAF events.

That is the only way ISAF can "control."

Wow, Mary!

For the international classes, governed by ISAF, I can understand that they want to control the worlds. But for the other classes, why do they care?

What you described sounds very harsh, and overly protective to me.

"Protective"? Is that the right word?

Well, maybe so, because they say they are trying to protect the "integrity" of the sport.

Post deleted by RickWhite

Oooh, please

This "ownership" of names by the ISAF was discussed "to death" previously on other threads, and I think that the concensus was if a class wanted to hold a "worlds" without the ISAF's involvement, was to just call the event by another name (before the ISAF greedily claimed that new name) for example one "title" that I personally thought sounded right was "the best of the five continents titles" or "the five oceans titles" as well as many others. It seems that anyone can conduct "worlds" just as long as they don't call them "worlds" (or internationals) - pretty petty by the ISAF pareticularly since there were "worlds" long before the was an ISAF.

Darryl,
It's not quite that simple. You cannot call it anything that even implies or gives the impression to anybody that it is a world championship. I like your ideas, but I don't know whether they would be acceptable.

Even the Caribbean Championships are not technically "legal" under ISAF because that would constitute a regional championship, which would have to be approved by ISAF. I was told that ISAF is letting that happen because that region is in the process of applying for status with ISAF.

Based upon what I was told, technically any class that is not an ISAF International or Recognized Class cannot hold North American Championships, because they involve more than one country. So far this has not been enforced here.

The International C-Class Catamaran Championship (Little America's Cup) was just as illegal as the Wave Worlds was, because the C-Class is no longer an ISAF international class and is not allowed to use the word "International" for its event or in the name of its class. ISAF will be looking into this, I was told.

I think that from the ISAF there is an awful lot of bluff. They can threaten all they like, as many people and organizations as they like BUT under law there is a limit! And while no one “stands up to them” they can get away with all they like.
The ISAF surely cannot legally claim sole proprietary rights to "sailing/racing”? For one thing precedence has to come into it some where, there was a lot of sailing/racing going on long before either the IYRU or, later the ISAF came onto the scene, and for them to claim "rights" over not only names of titles but also the concept of different titles, well that is going a little bit too far. What have they assumed they have the rights too? Are they saying that they “own” all the descriptive words in all languages and also proprietary rights over all thesauruses ever written?
I feel that if they become too “pushy” some one is just going to “stand up” to them and have it all sorted out in the courts. If that happens then I feel sure that the actual rights of the ISAF in these matters will be very greatly diminished.
Besides there is a little company called “Hobie” which conducted world titles long before there was an ISAF. Hobies rights to that title (worlds) should, in any ones books take precedent over the ISAF’s. If I were the “Hobie” organization, I would be telling the ISAF that they couldn’t use the title “worlds” without Hobies permission and a suitable royalty payment for the use there of.
Just my feelings on a touchy subject Mary.

ISAF (formerly IYRU) was around long before the Hobie Class Association. Most of the Hobie classes are ISAF International Classes, and, I could be wrong, but I think only those ISAF classes have held world championships.

Our International Wave Class Association is not affiliated with the Hobie Class Association.

I realize that the following would not move the ISAF one bit, but...

IMO, by excluding sailors on grounds other than ability (e.g. those who have sailed in a non-ISAF "world championship"), just on principle the ISAF forfeits the legitimacy of any claim that an event they sanction is in fact a real world championship. It no longer provides a defensible determination of the best willing and able competitor in that class.

So much for protecting the integrity of the sport.

Mark.

Mary my point being, that Hobie was holding "worlds" before there was any ISAF. There was the IYRU BUT the IYRU never complained about Hobie (or NACRA for that matter) using the title "worlds", in fact I don't think that the IYRU ever called any of its sanctioned events "worlds" (although different classes affiliated with the IYRU sailed events that were unofficially caled worlds, but that was never their official title) So why should the ISAF have the right, when they became the successor to the IYRU, to proclaim themselves "GOD' to all thing sailing in name and in fact???

The hobie association sailed in Australia for many many years, competing with their state, national, and international titles without any affiliation or connection with the IYRU. In fact they were never allowed to affiliate with the Australian yachting federation because they sailed with full sponsorship emblasoned on their sails and until relatively recent years sponsorship was the "work of the devil" as far as yachting authorities were concerned and any class that embraced it was "outlawed" so although the Hobies are now part of "the establishment" for many years they sailed their "worlds" outside the circles of the IYRU. I think you will find that there is more than one of the "top" (professional) cat sailors competing today started with those Hobie sponsored cats and they haven't as yet been excluded from any international competition by the ISAF.

I'm not planning things to go in either way at this time.




That is not the reason I'm doing them. Currently we are just making sure that we're surrounded by friends by not kicking into an shins.

The actions that you see have all to do with internal class structures and the fact that we are preparing ourself for what is to come.





Builders have not given me their final take on this.




Good question.

We need to pay some 3000 Euro's entry fee as well and we simply don't have that as a class.

So for now the issue is in the refrigerator by necessity.


Wouter

Darryl,
When sailors violate ISAF regulations, I think it would be rare for their eligibility to be suspended more than a year or two, depending upon the offense. The threat against the host country sounded like it was forever, though. And if any ISAF race officers, judges, measurers, etc. happened to help with the event, they were threatened with losing their certifications.

And who ever said that Adolf Hitler was dead????

Wouter, I have a couple more questions about this single-fleet, open-class racing:
Do all the boats, 14 feet to 20 feet, spinnaker and non-spinnaker, all start together and all race the same course?

How long is a normal course for this kind of racing, and what type of course is normally used?

In Europe is it only the catamarans that race in this way (one start for all), or do the monohulls do this, too?

Mary,




That is pretty much the standard format. Certainly for all club races and local events that attract less than 30 boats. At some larger event (I say SOME events) a split is made between a slow and fast fleet BUT often the share the same start and course anyway. The split is then visible only in the final scoring and the seperate price giving. At only a handful of events the individual boats have their own start or course ; often these are their own nationals that they organise as a class themselfs. Only REALLY active classes like F18 and F20 have about 4 or 5 "own start" events. Classes like the Hobie 16 and Nacra 6.0's don't, simply because they are too small or they don't have a class association anymore.




Bouy racing => we always aim for 45 minutes. Races that are longer than 60 min and shorter than 30 minutes are regarded as mistakes by the RC. But everybody rather has a 60 min course than a 30 min course. 30 min is regarded as a "race in starting" followed by a run home. To short to make sailing on the course exiting. If a RC tries 20 min courses and they will have a revlt on their hands. Typcially we aim for 2 to 3 laps and often this includes a one triangular round and one sausage round. So you have to pay attention were in the race you are or you'll miss a bouy and get protested out. Pretty much all course have a gate at the bottom and even a pure up and down run has a offset mark after A to get some seperation.

Distance racing ; this is always single start - open class fleet. You may have some individual scoring but that is rare. I think only Texel and the Spring / Autumn and Westlan cups have them in Netherlands and they mostly have a combined finish list as well. Simply put; you start and race together with a total combined scoring and if you have a class (rare) than you CAN get a filtered out scoring as well. So it is up to the sailor what he values most. Good sailors in One -Design classes tend to race on handicap with the other makes over racing their own. They find more skill to compete against in the larger open class than against the sailors in their own class.

Distances races can have any course of coures.

By the way Yes last years we had a Hobie Dragoon (with spi), Hobie 14 and Prindle 15's race against the best F18's and F20's in last years REM race (110 boats - 50 miles) at my club. Because of the larger number of boat this race is split in a fast and slow boat SCORING fleet only, they still start and race together. The H14 won the 40 boat big slow boat fleet. The 70 boat fast fleet was won by an F18 and both came rather close together in the combined listing.

Good sailors arrive at the top of any listing no matter what, even despite ratings systems that have inherent flaws.





Mono fleets are far more organised along the OD route. However at club races they still mix up fleets to get good numbers. However I don't think we have to much active mono hull racing in mainland Europe. I think Uk is a little different. At least in the Netherlands they don't compare at all with catamarans. Only laser 1's make a impression. 49-er class and 420 / 470 classes are rather small and certainly don't have filled big event calender like the cats do.


But can he get back at the Formula 16 issues that need resolving now ?

Wouter

Well, apparently the way in which catamarans race in different parts of the world has some bearing on the way the F-16 rules are set up -- so it appears to be relevant to the topic. At least your answers have given me a better understanding of the intent of the rules as written.

That is true indeed.

Wouter

So, in the United States, because of the rating system we use, if we adopted the one-start, open-class system that you use in Europe the F-16 with spinnaker would have exactly the same rating as the F-16 with Hooter, and they would be racing boat-for-boat and be scored together for trophies. Is that correct?

This would certainly be the case for racing a T4.9 with additional downwind sail under Portsmouth. I'm not sure how it would work for an F16 compliant boat that didn't have a non-spinaker rating.
In that case, I would think that to race under the F16 portsmouth rating that you would have to be compliant with the F16 rule which has the midgirth requirement.

local races on my side of Au are generally 2 hours. Start at 2 home by 4.

Wouter, I have a few more comments and questions about the rules:

1. Just a suggestion that maybe in the rules you could change the word "gennaker" to "spinnaker." Gennaker seems to have a different definition in Europe than it does in the United States. I have always known the gennaker as a hybrid word that refers to a sail that is a cross between a genoa jib and a spinnaker and has a wire luff. In other words, a very lightweight reacher. About a year ago I learned that in Europe a gennaker refers to a spinnaker. So now when people use that word I am never quite clear what they are referring to -- or what they think they are referring to.

2. I don't quite understand the difference between Section 5 (Dispensation) and Section 6 (Grandfathering). Dispensation comes from the Formula 16 Authority and is "limited in duration and reviewed yearly." Grandfathering is done by the local F16 class organization, and it does not say it is limited or reviewed.
So, is grandfathering as described in Section 6 a permanent condition? Or should it be worded the same as Section 5?

3. I have a question about Section 6.1.3 "Both the SCHRS (ISAF) and Texel rating of the design must be equal to or slower than the rating assigned to the Formula 16 class."

I gather that this means the "local F-16 Class organization" cannot take into consideration the rating system used in their particular country? As you know, in the United States we use the Portsmouth handicapping system for our open-class racing. And since most sailors in this country are not familiar with the SCHRS and the Texel systems, does the local organization contact you (the Authority) to find out what those ratings are? Would everybody basically have three ratings, and how they use them would depend on whether they want to race in the Open Formula 16 class or in regular open class?

And, of course, those ratings are subject to change based upon performance, so if your SCHRS and/or Texel rating changes, that could affect whether or not you can stay in the Open F16 class; right?
* * * * *
You don't have to actually answer me. I'm just responding to your request for suggestions.

Hi Mary,
A few ideas from an also not-quite-European perspective.
You`re quite right on the gennaker / spinnaker question, but I think over the years the gennaker definition, among non-keelboat sailors, has come to represent any assymetrical spinnaker used predominately for reaching. I think the Aussies might call it the same, from skiff sailing where the assymetric really found it`s roots in modern high-performance sailing. The fact that, in cat-sailing specifically, our "kite" has become flatter than a traditional "spinnaker" has probably made the term "gennaker" more accurately define that piece of cloth out front that makes us go fast. Call it what you like, as long as it complies with the measurement rule, it will be F16 class legal. If Rick were to design a Hooter that conforms to the 75% mid-girth rule, it would be accepted as class-legal. (And I`d save up for one !!)

From What I understand the difference between dispensation and grandfathering is the fact that grandfathering is a more permanent form of inclusion in the class, and allows these boats to race on the "Closed F16 class" while dispensation allows boats a form of temporary inclusion that is open to annual review, and can only race in Open F16 events. SImply put, the Taipan has been given permanent dispensation ie it is grandfathered and can race in any F16 event, national, international with no limitations. (Although it has an oversize jib it has been accepted as one of the foundation boats.)
On the other hand the Mosquito has been dispensated, meaning that we can hold local and even national Open events, provided we welcome and allow ANY F16 compliant boats to enter. The Mosquito is dispensated for being under min. weight, but due to our much smaller sailplan, our ISAF/Texel rating is slower than that of F16, so we comply in that regard. But we can`t enter our boats in a World champs or international event. (Most SA boats are actually over min. weight fully rigged, it`s only the Aussies who build insanely lightweight boats. )

"3. I have a question about Section 6.1.3 "Both the SCHRS (ISAF) and Texel rating of the design must be equal to or slower than the rating assigned to the Formula 16 class."
And, of course, those ratings are subject to change based upon performance, so if your SCHRS and/or Texel rating changes, that could affect whether or not you can stay in the Open F16 class; right? "

Wrong here Mary, I think the US is the only country where you modify handicaps based on actual performance. Souns like a nightmare to administer.(Australia use the VYC yardstick, they might also do the same, not sure.)
ISAF and Texel use a system of measurements of the boat, and use a formula to calculate it`s potential speed relative to other known boats. Unless you change the boat, your handicap stays the same. I find this the most sensible route, it prevents boats being "ratings-beaters" and "rating-creep" due to inactive sailors in the class, or basing the class rating on the performance of a large group of below-average sailors. It isn`t faultless, but it works to a large degree. This is WHY the F16 class chose the ISAF/Texel systems, they are constant.
Furthermore, you can download the ISAF/Texel calculators, type in the specs of your boat, and you`ll have an (unofficial) ISAF/Texel rating. All it takes is a half-day of taking some measurements. OR send the specs of your boat to Wouter, he is working on a refined/improved version of rating system.

Hope this answers some of your questions.

Steve

Hi all,

on the east coast of OZ we sail a mix of race types. Some short course 1hr. duration, some older style 2hrs, and some long distance races. Courses vary from triangle sausage, to windward and returns all depends on the cat classes.

As far as handicap is concerned VYC yardstick is pretty much treated as gospel. Yes it is performance based and this saw the Mosquito with spinnakers yardstick reduced this year as it placed very well in most races last year. Making it harder for Mosquitos to win on yardstick in mixed fleets this year.

Most clubs run mixed fleet racing as there are not enough cats of one design to have a fleet. Generaly they will seperate results for a class from the mixed fleets if there are more than 5 of one class. But will not give seperate starts corses until there are at least 10 of a class. Alot of open reggattas will split the cat fleet on a Yardstick basis if they have 10 or more in each fleet, but they will often sail the same course with less laps for the slower cats. Although sometimes this "slow fleet" includes some 16' cats as well as 14 footers.

Regards Gary.

1. Spinnakers to Gennakers : I think Steve wrote most of the answer down already. The reason for the hybrid name is that such a sail is set as an spinnaker but the way it produces its drive is far more along the lines of a genua. It is a lift producing sail instead of a sail creating drive by pure drag.

To adres to differences in intepretation between regions the F16 rules include a definition of a F16 gennaker in section 7




I think this is the best we can do considering the circumstances.


2. This is a little bit different than how Steve answered it. (steve mixes up Open an Closed F16 fleets). The thing to realize that only full compliant F16 boats + foundation boats make up the (closed) F16 fleet; this (closed) F16 fleet combined with all dispensated boats (either grandfathered or dispensated directly) together make up the Open F16 fleet. Of course the next step is simply open class racing as we already know it; no need to rule on that in the F16 rules. International F16 events and Nationals are by default (closed) F16 races UNLESS specified otherwise. For example the DCC event in 2004 was specified as a open F16 events and for example Spitfires as well as Mosquito's could enter next to full compliant F16's.

Let me give all important F16 class rules on dispensation (of which grandfathering is just a part)








So all non-compliant boats may seek dispensation to race at declared OPEN F16 races/events by appealing to the rules defined in sections 5 and 6. There are two way to acquire dispensation. First to ask directly for dispensation with the F16 authority. Secondly, by invoking (satisfying) the grandfather rule and direct this request to the local F16 class official.

The only difference between dispensated boats and Grandfathered boats is that dispensated boats have a far better change to get invited at big F16 events like international events of large national events. It is more difficult to get dispensation directly as the craft in question must live up to the spirit of the F16 rules and be very comparable in overall speed. Example ; Both the I-17 (F17) and FX-one can immediately appeal to the grandfather status and race class with us. HOWEVER they are not expected to get direct dispensation as long as their class rules are SMOD based and as long as the F-17 flyes a much larger spinnaker. We welcome all dispensated boats (Direcly dispensated and grandfathered) to all open F16 events, but we not invite grandfather boats to F16 specific events while the dispensated boats may still be invited.

The current position of the F16 class is that we'll make all local events to be Open F16 class events. This included events like Tradewinds, Texel, Springfever, Foster, etc. Special F16 events organised by ourselfs are most often (closed) F16 events where up till now the dispensated boats have been invited too; DCC (2004), Inaugural event Signapore, Gulfport championships, Victoria State F16 Challenge, etc. We expect only the very important international events to be ever declared to be for the closed F16 class only. I leave that to the organisers but personally I wouldn't mind racing Spitfires and Mosquito's at out international events.

Last point I want to make is that ; Local F16 officials and Local race organisers have alot of freedom in determining how their event is run and who is invited or not. That is as long as they stay within the general rules of the F16 class, these do allow some significant freedom.


3. Steve answered this one pretty right. Indeed we can only use Texel and ISAF as they are the only ones that give a rating for any imaginable boat. For example how do we het a USPN number for a Mosquito ? There is no base rating we can use the modifiers on as is the case with the Taipan.

All I can say with respect to this point is that the F16 class rules apply and that the local official (Jennifer Lindsay in your case) has considerable freedom within these F16 rules. Eventually it all comes down to fair and equal racing. On one hand I hear that Hooters are noticeably faster than gennakers and on the other hand I hear that they get the same performance modification. Either one of these is wrong and currently I do not know which one. Personally I would love to get my hands on some more real life data.

Having said this, one thing is certain. Any boat with a non-compliant spi (what it is called) can NOT use the USPN system in combination with the Grandfather clause to enter F16 racing. The Grandfather clause specifically mentions the ISAF and Texel systems. The only route open to these craft is asking for dispensation directly. And you have to argue your case with the F16 authority; of course you can use the USPN way of rating boat in this request.

Such are the rules.

Wouter

Thank you, Steve and Wouter. The difference between dispensated and grandfathered is still a little fuzzy, and the respective rules could be made a little more clear to reflect the way Wouter explained them. And as you saw, even Steve misunderstood those rules.

And, Steve, we DO have a spinnaker for the Taipan 4.9. Dave White (Rick's son) used it when he won the U.S. F16 Nationals.

The reason Rick wants to use the Hooter when he singlehands is because, how shall I say this, it has been a long time since his birth, and he is not as agile as he used to be and has various physical problems. It is just much easier for him to use a Hooter. And if I sail with him sloop-rigged, I probably would not have the agility or strength to use the spinnaker, either. It's a heck of a lot easier to furl than to snuff.

In fact, one of the factors that helped Dave to win the Nationals was that his team had much faster spinnaker sets and take-downs as the regatta wore on, because female crews on other boats were getting too tired from the raising, snuffing process. Dave did not have a snuffer and launched the spinnaker from the deck, which was easier on his crew as well as being faster. (And easier on the spinnaker, too, I might add.)

As I have said before, I think a Hooter-type, furling headsail will attract more old folks and women and kids to the class.

Now, Wouter, you said the Hooter-type sail is supposedly faster than the spinnaker. What are you basing that on? I have seen no evidence of this. Has this been tested anywhere? If anything, I would think the opposite would be true. The purpose for using it is ease of handling, not speed.

Hopefully, Rick will get a chance to race against some other F-16's once in a while to get an idea of the difference.

In the meantime, maybe you need a rule that says dispensated boats using reachers cannot use them upwind. Of course, that would also probably require a corresponding rule that prevents people from using their spinnakers above a certain point of sail, even if the sail is cut flat enough to do so. It would not be fair unless all the boats are using their big headsails only on the same parts of the race course.

First, I'm going to jump to Wouter's defense. He actually said he's heard two sides of the story....a) that Hooters are faster and b) that they run comparably with spis. He went on to say that he'd like to get some additional data to figure out which is correct.

Now for the real point of the post....

It seems that there are two parts of the hooter discussion...one, how to furl and unfurl the sail and two, the shape of the sail.

As far as using a roller furling method to manage the sail, I don't think there is any rule prohibiting this.

As far as shape of sail, I checked out the north sails site to get some information on their Code 0s. The keelboat handicapping systems have the same midgirth requirements as the current F16 rule, so they had to develop them to fit the rule as well. The racing Code 0's that North makes a) fit the midgirth requirement b)are set on a rope luff and c) are designed for use with roller furlers. It seems that using this same family of design, it's possible to get a "hooter-esque" sail that meets the current requirements.

However, I've heard that the racing code 0's are rather twitchy to trim....anyone have any experience with that?

Jeff.

Mary,



Actually they are the same thing only grandfathering can be done at a lower level in the authority structure and can be done by the local class head alone. Full dispensation can only be done by the whole class authority. But achieving either one pretty leads to the same end result.





I'm sure Kirt Simmons and Geert Ruesink are now looking at each other to determine who was "the female" on board during that very race. !

And then we are still left to determine who was "the male" on the all-girls Alter cup qualifying team ! As they beat several all guys teams.

But seriously, we are not here to ban anybody. For serious reasons we can't remove the mid-girth rule, we'd be killed overnight in the international scene. But I don't suspect that the Florida F16 sailors will ban Rick from entering with his hooters. Eventually it is Jennifers call, and the individual RC's will determine how to best rate Rick in this attire.





This may be, but not having the girth rule as good as finishes us off in Europe, South Africa and Asia (over 60 % of the class). I'm quite sure that not many old, female or kiddies teams will join a dead class. We can go over this again and again , as we have done a few times in the past but the situation has not changed and so the end result will remain the same.

I say; bring your boat and race us, we will welcome you ! But you can't use the F16 handicap ratings or campaign for any international prices as long as you don't fully comply with the F16 class rules. There is nothing we can do to change that.




From http://www.catsailor.com/bestof_articles/Hooter.html

The Hooter : a Hot, New Sail with all the trimmings by Rick White,

And I quote :







Officially the F16 class rules don't even know what a reacher is (or a hooter). It only specifies a shape requirement for a downwind sail that for some reason can not be satisfied by a reacher/hooter. We must draw the line somewhere.

The other part of the argument revolved around furling headsails. Can someody explain to me why a spinnaker can not be cut flat and be furled just like a reacher ? Obviously the F16 class rules don't ban wires in the luff of a spinnaker or any other item that explictly forbids furling. So the issue at hand is not really wether you may furl it or not.

It also isn't wether the class rules ban a reacher/hooter type sail either. The rules don't say anything about that. They only rule on a maximum upwind sailarea and consider everything that is not a mainsail or gennaker to be a jib. So in effect the see reachers/hooters just as jibs. If you lower you mainsail area and remove the jib I'm sure the hooter headsail (reacher) will be ruled F16 class legal. So that isn't the issue either.

So this is not really about the F16 rules banning reachers or hooter. Because they simply don't.

I think the true issue here is that a under the current rule set a reacher sail set (hooter + main etc) can not be made to work well enough to beat gennaker fitted F16's. The same can be said of many other possible design features. For example foamless hulls (to much overall weight) or unstayed masts (to inefficient compared to rotating masts). None of these are banned.





But we aren't banning anybody from setting their spis upwind now.

Basically, we never looked at the reacher/hooter sails when we drafted the rules. We never included the mid girth rule to explicetly ban them. We simply forced a shape parameter for the gennaker because the class would not be able to growth and be succesful without it. In this respect it is the same as the 2.50 mtr width limit. And we are not going to have a rule that says that 3.0 mtr wide F16-like boats can race as F16's when they only have one person on the trapeze either.

So I guess the best way to adres this point is to design a spi sail that satisfies the mid girth rule and that can be furled. I don't see a reason why this can not be done.

Beyond that any sail that is cut very flat, has less the 75 % mid girth and it set ahead of the mast is regarded to be a jib sail. Something that they arguably are, even if they are identified by a new name like a reacher/hooter/screacher or Genua. They are all jibs, of different sailcut I admit, but they are jibs nevertheless.

Regards,

Wouter

Hi Steve

In my experience I've never heard anyone in Australia use the term "gennaker". The skiffs use "spinnakers", and so do the Mozzies.

gennaker / spinnaker and kite are interchangable IMO in the UK (at least in the cat racing genre)

A while back I talked to a sailmaker about this, and he said the term gennaker can be ambiguous, so if somebody orders a gennaker, he has to have them clarify exactly what type of sail they are talking about. I think the term "spinnaker" is universally understood, which is why I suggested using that word in the rules. Not everybody is going to go down and check the definitions if they think they already know what a word means. It would be unfortunate if somebody ordered the wrong type of sail for this class just because of a simple word misunderstanding.

Wouter and all-
As some of you know, Geert has the use of only one arm and we quickly figured out we were faster with myself as crew. One must remember that particular Nationals was early in the F16 development and the snuffers had "kinks" that were not worked out well then and most of the crews (male and female)were not used to crewing with a spi. Dave and his crew practiced the whole week before together on that venue and were the most practiced in the event. Their boat was also the most "aerodynamic" not having a snuffer bag aboard. By the way, Gordon was crew for Jennifer in that event so I hope you didn't insult him Mary!
In terms of furling, I agree IF we could develop a nice spinnaker (at least a "spinnaker" as far as the rating rules go because all rating systems I know of severely handicap a non-spinnaker headsail) that could be furled, that might appeal to a group of sailors that are intimidated by snuffing/bag launching and or the singlehanders. In that regard, as mentioned, it is not against our rules to furl a spinnaker.
In fact my new Goodall spi even has a luff string so it might be a natural for me to try this on-
Regarding a spi specifically designed to be furled-
I wonder Wouter, is it "illegal" to have battens in a spi or would this be handicapped severely??
I'm thinking if one can put battens in a spinnaker could one not use vertical leech battens to support the roach while still allowing furling
Anyway, just some thoughts! Great discussion- You can tell it's too cold to sail most places (or too rainy every weekend here lately!)-

Kirt

Hi Kirt,
Funny, but Dave had to practice all week. The guy he sailed with had never sailed before and Dave only sails about 2 or 3 times a year.., usually too busy working. Also, he had never sailed a Taipan at all before that week.

As for a furling spinnaker, I believe that can be done. Calvert told me last year that he could design a sail that would meet the rule and still be a Hooter-type. The whole mid-girth rule just seems silly to me when the Hooter is a smaller sail. And it appears that the Hooter sail is only penalized in Texel.., certainly not in the USA. In fact, with the DPN Rating the Hooter took less of a hit than the spinnaker until a couple of years ago.
And since the USA supposedly makes up 25% of the worldwide class, you would think we could have a bit more say in the whole thing.

The mid-girth thing is no doubt a carry-over from monohull thinking.

You wrote :




Can you please clearify what it is exactly that you trying to say here ?

Wouter

Rick-
But Dave's obviously got the "sailing genes"!!
That was a fun time and a great regatta- Thanks again!
As for the mid-girth "rule", I'm sure it is derived from a monohull based definition of what a "spinnaker" is-
But the reality is at the current time (and certainly when we were setting up the class rules a few years ago) this is the "definition" and the ratings for the Hooter would hit the class hard, at least in Europe.
I just got an "experimental" spinnaker from Goodall myself so someone else can pony up for the Calvert this year.
If no one has by next season and my current one doesn't work out like I want I may give it a try. You know I'm not afraid to try new things- Bought the first US Taipan 4.9 sight unseen.

Kirt

Hi Kirt,
It really is a crying shame that we cannot get a class of F16s going here in the U.S. Calvert has gotten away from beach cats in the last few years because so many classes require factory-supplied sails.
Just had lunch with him the other day and he would love to get back into the beach cat scene, but the factory sails is a killer for inventive and creative sailmakers.
I told him how the F18 classes is really taking off and they are wide open for sails. I wish I could have told him the same about the F16 or the F14, but alas, I could not.

He is willing to sponsor a team with new and creative sails, if it is in a class that is growing, shows up for events, and has good exposure. Otherwise, there would be nothing in it for him.

I know I was really excited about the F16 Class when I first got my 4.9, but that bubble has since been busted.
We really need to do something like the F18 Class and get folks out sailing.
The best way I know of is to get an email list and keep in communication so we all agree as to what events to attend.

As it is, my poor 4.9 just sits there gathering dust and mildew.

On another note, Kirt, since you are so up on the Taipan 4.9, have they ever improved the rudder system? I have probably lost more races with this boat than any I have because of the rudders.., HOLD ON! The worst was the Mystere. But both are close.

For example, while racing in the Miami-Key Largo Race against about 300 boats, I had a great start and was 20-miles in to the course and close to the lead boats (SC30, RC27 and the like) and started slowing down due to weeds on the rudder.
So, yanked up on that dumb rudder stick (the one with the downward pin that goes into a hard-to-find hole) and the entire rudder came off the pindle.
That was some sort of fun trying to line up those holes in rock and roll seas. I was at least 45 minutes in doing so. Needless to say, my finish was not that good.
And one time I hit something and instead of the rudder popping up, the stick bent.

The best rudder system I have ever seen was very simple. The Nacra 6.0 had a foolproof system that basically used ropes. It always worked.
In fact, that is what my Taipan 5.7 uses and it works great.
Apparently, in Australia, they must not have sand bars, kelp and only sail out of Yacht Clubs.

If you hear of any improvements, or if you have any suggestion, I would love to hear from you.., or anyone, for that matter.

Thanks,
Rick

Hey Rick, does Jennifer Lindsay does this already? If not, I think its time we start doing it. I can take it upon myself to do so. Although, until I get my blade, I cannot do anything about it.

Where do you think I should post it? F16 forum, or CABB forum?

Do we want it to be a local FL thing? or open up more to the GA folks as well? Let me know, I am willing to do it, if no one else is.

Um sand bars? kelp? sailing not out of a club? I'm shocked... The club has hot showers and cheap beer!

Most YC folks don't have much tolerance for cats. The Tornadoes do enjoy the YC atmosphere, but the rest of the cats are considered nomads, living in the sand of the beach.

Here we need kickup rudders that work. However, I just discovered a way to use the Nacra semi-circle prismatic kickups on a square tiller. That will solve all the problems and I will have a useful boat again.
Rick

In my city.
We have two cat only clubs. Both sail offshore, one has an acre or so of grass to rig up on and a no wave beach to sail out from. The other is beach based with waves. There are three other ocean based clubs in the metro area.. One has at least one cat class not sure about the other two. Both have sand/grass rigging areas. All are wave free. Then there are 3 mixed clubs on the river. One has around 3 acres of lawn... All have hot showers and cold cheap beer. The river also has 2 skiff clubs and 6 skiff/cruiser clubs.

In addition there are 4 clubs within what I call the greater metro area. Its been some time since I visited these but back then they all had cats. In addition most regional clubs have a cat fleet.

Rick-
Well, there are more Taipans and F16HP's in Florida than anywhere else and that's where they are growing the fastest so you are in the right state! I'm sure those folks would love to see you out! Are you going to compete in the upcoming F16HP uni race Jennifer is planning?

As for sails, I don't know why you would tell Dave the F16HP's or Taipans do not have "open" sails? Both the Taipan class rules and F16HP class rules allow any sailmaker or you can make your own. There are a number of different sailmakers in Australia supplying Taipan class sails such as Redhead sails or Ashby sails, etc. and you can order a boat without sails if desired. In the Taipan class in order to compete in National/International class events you do have to pay a slight fee and get an official "patch", but this is fairly common. As for the F16HP sail rules, anybody can make them and they just have to fit the class rules.
As for rudders- they have upgraded the old bent aluminum tube rudder boxes with carbon fiber boxes and newer rudder shapes (just like the Aussie Flyer rudders and boxes if you are familiar with those- Jennifer has these) but still use a rod although it is stiffer and stronger. HOWEVER, the Taipan and F16HP rules are pretty open on rudders so you can put (almost) any kind of rudder system on there you want. The "ideal" system IMO would be a takeoff on the old NACRA "remote" pull down system with bunji uphaul (you know- the one that used a cleat on the rear beam so you could kickup and then lock down your rudder from the other side of the boat- Murrays used to sell a kit to upgrade to this. I have used a similar system with the Clamcleat #CL257 "auto-release racing mini cleat" which is a selfcontained sort of version of the pivmatic clamp and the release tension is adjustable. The only "issue" I have with them is they are fairly expensive (~$22 USD) and hard to find but they work well. You could use your current rudder "hole" in the back top of the rudder for a bunji uphaul and drill a hole in the rudder and rig the downhaul line ala the Nacras and either use this cleat on the tiller arm or mount it on the front of the rear beam and run the remote line through the rear beam to it.
When we were doing the Worrell on the 5.7 we converted the rudder system (as I am sure you are aware since you had one of those boats!) to Nacra style for launching through the surf- Beware of trying to steer if the rudder is not fairly down in the rudder box or you will break a rudder.

Regards,
Kirt

Kirt,
Rick worded that sentence a little awkwardly, and I can see how it could have been misunderstood. He and Calvert both know that the F16 and F14 classes are open as far as sails. What he was saying was that he was sorry he could not tell Calvert that those two classes are "taking off," as the Formula 18 has.

I'm sure that will be changing soon for the F16, now that we have a U.S. builder. Very exciting!

And, yes, Rick is going to the uni regatta.

"A while back I talked to a sailmaker about this, and he said the term gennaker can be ambiguous, so if somebody orders a gennaker, he has to have them clarify exactly what type of sail they are talking about. I think the term "spinnaker" is universally understood, which is why I suggested using that word in the rules. Not everybody is going to go down and check the definitions if they think they already know what a word means. It would be unfortunate if somebody ordered the wrong type of sail for this class just because of a simple word misunderstanding. "

Mary, it would be impossible to make a sail that doesn`t conform to the class rules, as long as you actually READ them first !
The rules on a spinnaker / gennaker / hooter are so simple it would be incredibly difficult for a sailmaker to get it wrong such that your sail doesn`t measure. Whether you call it a gennaker, spinnaker, hooter, screacher, reacher, code 0, or an inverted apex g-string bikini really doesn`t make a difference.(My apology to all skydivers or parachutists, and ladies who floss behind).

What matters is that your max. hoist height is 7,5m, your max. calculated sail area is 17,5sqm, and your mid-girth measurement is 75% of the foot length. (Unfortunately the measurements are metric, and the method of calculating sail area is done according to ISAF calculations, so I can see a lot of resistance from American sailors to want to belong to a class that works according to International methods, and doesn`t do things the American way.) There`s also a rule on pole length, which will determine the max. aspect ratio to a certain degree. The fullness/flatness, position of max. draft, luff, leech & foot lengths and a host of other design variables (most of which I`m too stupid to understand, and that`s why I`m no sailmaker), are just that - variable. A sailmaker who knows how to make catamaran sails and claims he can`t be creative within the class rules has no clue on what he`s doing. But I`m going to assume your sailmaker won`t get it wrong.

I think the term Gennaker came about when, on keelboats, cruising people started putting spinnaker type sails on their boats without a spinnaker pole, and you gybed it as you would a normal jib ie you turn it inside-out, and it was assymetric, meaning it`s leech & luff lengths were unequal. It made things a lot easier and hence hit the cruising market first. It was called a "gennaker" by sailmakers first, so I`m dumb-founded as to why THEY would be the ones who think it`s an ambiguous term.

I think you can sum it up as follows:
Spinnaker : symmetrical foresail, gybed such that the leech on one gybe becomes the luff on the next gybe, and is set on a gybing pole. Has a port & starboard clew, rather than a tack and clew.
Gennaker : assymetrical foresail, is turned inside-out when gybing, and has a tack and a clew. (meaning the tack is always fixed at the pole end while set.)
If I`m half-way right on these definitions, what we sail with is called a gennaker, unless you gybe your pole as you would on keelboats. I think the term spinnaker has crept in and got used by sailors, not sailmakers, and it`s what we got stuck with, even though it might not be correct terminology. Who really cares ?
Steve

Hi Rick,
Regarding Calvert Sails :
"He is willing to sponsor a team with new and creative sails, if it is in a class that is growing, shows up for events, and has good exposure. Otherwise, there would be nothing in it for him. "

I agree - no sailmaker or boatbuilder is going to give away free anything unless they can see a return on their investment, even if it is only goodwill and support from the class in question. On the other hand, if he shows support for a young class and helps it grow, he might just be the beneficiary when it grows up.

What he might consider is what we have done here - we had a 50% split of sailors who had spinnakers and those who didn`t. We approached the Sailmaker (North) who makes most of our sails for our class and gets good business out of our class, and asked them to sponsor a spinnaker. Our class association then put in the rest required to build up a kit, ie snuffer and blocks, ropes etc. We then put the carrot out : the first non-spinnaker boat at the next Nationals would win the spinnaker kit. (had to be a boat that did not have a spinnaker yet, we didn`t allow spin-equipped boats to sail without kite for the prize.)
The result was one happy guy who didn`t have a kite before, a mention of thanks to the sailmaker at the prize-giving, and a growth in number of spinnaker-boats in our class from 50% to 90% - at the prize-giving, 7 new spinnakers were ordered ! Now THAT is a good return on investment.

Now I know Calvert doesn`t get much cat-sailing business thanks to SMOD classes, but this would be a good way to get in with a class that allows any sailmaker. He could make a sail (main, jib, spinn, or even a "creatively designed hooter type sail" (that fits the measurements in the class ) and have it as a prize at the next F16 Nationals. And the beauty of it is that the sail would fit a Taipan OR Blade, or any other F16 design boat, since they are all built close to max. specs and are so similar, so he wouldn`t have to make a class-specific sail, just one that fits the F16 rules. Perhaps it could go to the most improved skipper, to stop the hotshots from walking away with the most goodies !

"I know I was really excited about the F16 Class when I first got my 4.9, but that bubble has since been busted.
We really need to do something like the F18 Class and get folks out sailing.
The best way I know of is to get an email list and keep in communication so we all agree as to what events to attend. "

Rick, surely the best way to acchieve this is through the F16 Forum ? It is public, I`m sure ALL Taipan / Blade / F16 owners check in here at least once a week (Hell, I`m a day-by-day junkie ! )
You guys all know where and when the next open-class regatta is happening, it only takes one of you to start a post saying "lets show up at there this weekend."
If nothing happens in the class you only have yourselves, collectively, to blame. YOU are the owners of F16 boats, so who else should make it happen if not the owners ?

Now if you combined both ideas : Get Calvert to sponsor a sail, and give it away at the end of a season to the sailor who is the most improved skipper / most consistent / whatever, AND has attended 80% of the regattas, you might get better attendance at the events ?

Steve

Glenn Ashby supported us in the beginning and sponsored the New South Wales F16 challenge trophy

I think he sold over 20 F16 sail sets by now.

I seem to remember Irwin sails sponsored the Victoria F16 challenge prize. A discount voucher on his sails. And a few sailors seem to go his way.

Goodall sold even a lot more spinnakers than that as he is still the best spi maker for the F16 class. Even Glenn refers to him if somebody asks him for a spi. Greg handed out a few spi sails in the beginning just to have people get a feel for spi sailing and to get some feedback on his initial design.

If you want to earn money then you have to develop new markets. I mean 2 years ago F18 class in the US was small as well. Any sail maker that put in the effort in back then is now on full speed. Any sailmaker that still must get up to speed now is behind. Also in these classes you better make sure you have a testing system giving you feedback as your sails must be good or you won't survive the competition. Often the sailmakers actively involved in the class come out on top simply because they put the effort in in the beginning and thus don't start out with a tail end position.

Wouter

At this time (12:43 PM) and date 26 februari 2005 I, the chairman, close the voting on the mast tipe weight rule. The vote was open for 1 month, from 25 januari till 25 februari.

The final result on the proposal to delete the mast tip weight rule alltogether by the onlin vote is :

10 in favour (52 %)
9 against (48 %)

This is insufficient to force a decision out right.

The second (verified) voting on this topic was, to be honest, a disappointment. Formula16class(at)hotmail.com received only 5 e-mails. 3 against deletion and 2 in favour.

There was one e-mail giving 3 more votes in favour of deletion of the rule but these were thrown out as it was REQUIRED that each crew would take the effort to send in his or her vote personally and would supply additional information. As a class we don not accept voting by proxy. We can't verify the truthfulness of such voting, that is the reason. So I'm sorry to this person, nothing personal, but it is the way we have always done out voting and we will always require this procedure.

The situation is clear.

We have a deadlock, but only one where some 75 % of the class implicetly indicated that they would accept any decision made by the class authority. They did this by not sending in their votes. I think this is the first of such a result in any class vote we held over the last 3 years.

So we have to go to the class rules to see what is next :

Rule 2.7.2 has been satisfied. The body of F16 sailors has been consulted. No clear result is available so this leave the F16 class Authority to break the deadlock with a decision. Rule 2.4.1 puts the chairman in the position to break at deadlock. It is up to me now the give an "interpretation" of this deadlock and end with a decision in this matter. I, the chairman, will have to consult the F16 class authority about this. I already have, but will do so one final time. The first contact time with the class officials pointed towards the benefits of a compromise.

But first I seek for guidence on this matter in the class rules :


I refer especially to :

Rule 2.3.1.

Formula 16 class rules are mildly restricted class rules indicative of a controlled development class.This means that small advancements in handling and general behaviour of the designs are allowed as long as the spirit of the rule is preserved and the continued existance of the class is assured.


Here: I take note of the allowance of small advancements and the importance of the spirit of the rule and the continued existance of the class

Rule 2.6.2.A

Preserving general equality in overall performance between crafts of different make, accepting small variations, in order to garantee fair racing between designs of different make.

Here : I take the fact that fair racing must be garanteed.

Rule 2.6.2.B

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

Here : I take the requirements that refinements are allowed; refinements meaning small increases in POSSIBLE performance.


Rule 2.6.2.C

The allowance to gently improve, by design, the handling and overal behaviour of a craft in small controlled steps which don't upset the balance in the class to the extend that the continued existance and growth of the class are no longer garanteed.


Here I see a combination of the facets named above. Small refinements are allowed as long as continued existance is garanteed and as long as level racing is not compromised.

One poster wrote that perception of the class and class rules may be just as important to the continued existance of the F16 class as real performance and equality between makes. As a chairman I agree, carbon masts still have a magical ring to them even though in physical models the choice of material is only a very limited influence. Especially with the Tornado carbon masts and the way these rules are worded so that alu mast are noticeably penalized with respect to carbon we must have a way of reassuring the potential F16 sailors. No matter how much I personally believe that tipweight is not a significang performance influence in the F16 class because of our really lightweight alu mast, I think that keeping the tipweight rule is a very good way to reassure less educated potential F16 sailors.

Such a tipweight rule is a convincing and short answer to any expressed doubts. We, as the F16 class, limited the differences that may exist between alu and carbon to a neglectable level when looking at boat performance. This will still allowing refinements in righting of the boat and improvements in durability because of having to reinvest all weight savings in the mast in other parts of the boat. This should be enough to still any "but's". Another good argument is to point out the F18's class shows tipweight differences between masts of around 1 kg as well. Nobody thinks twice about equal level racing there. So why should anybody doubt that with the F16 mast tip weight rule in place ?

So in basis I, as the chairman, will decide to keep a tipweight rule in the F16 class rules. And note that I wrote A tipweight rule. The question now becomes whether that is he current one or a new one.

As indicated above ; The class rules allow small improvements over time as long as they are slowed down enough to keep boats competitive over many years. I think this provides us a key to solving the deadlock.

By lowering the tipweight rule limit from 6.5 kg to 6.0 kg we breng back the bulk of the Stealth F16's back into compliance. And the change is also small enough to qualify as a small improvement that in itself will be unable to upset the class in any serious way.

Any boats still under this limit are considered to be remarkably under (tip) weighted for the current rule of 6.5 kg and they must ask themselfs how they became uncompliant like this in the first place. An offset like this can't not be put down as caused by a natural variation during production.

Also by lowering the tipweight from 6.5 to 6.0 kg we reach out out to them, it will be their duty to reach back out to us.

With respect to the wording of the rule, I as the chairman, decided that the current wording with the lowering of the tip weight creates just the right situation. The best masts are then the ones right at the minimum allowed tip weight. The others, after fitting corrector weights, slowly move-away from this optimal points only to increase the disadvantage with increasingly non-compliance. This dependency is a curve, meaning adding the first X kg of corrector weight makes less of disadvantage then the increase of the next X kg of corrector weight. So around the optimal point we have rather flat dependency that only curves upward after significant tipweight is added. This facilitates mast production as accuracy in mast tipweight will not be very important as long as it is abve 6.0 kg.



So the compromise that is worded in the chairmans intepretation of the situation is :

Replace the wording of rule 1.4.5 :

"The minimum mast tip weight of a fully fitted mast, excluding standing rigging, is
set at 6.50 kg's for reasons of seaworthyness."

By

[color:"red"]"The minimum mast tip weight of a fully fitted mast, excluding standing rigging, is
set at 6.00 kg's for reasons of seaworthyness and garanteeing fair racing." [/color]


I will now send the last mail to all class officials for confirmation. Also class members may express their objection or support but ONLY really pressing arguments will sort any effect. I as the chairman fully accept that the class can not satisfy everybody, it is trusted however that this change will satisfy, by far, the most members.


One final comment will need to be made however.

This time the F16 class reached out to a group of owners and a builder that allowed their boats to swing into non-compliance. THERE WILL NOT BE A SECOND TIME !

Any builder or owner of a non-compliant boat after this day WILL seriously risk being banned from the F16 class. The F16 class rules are to be adhered to. With our growth and formalisation of late we have no choice then to be firm on this and we will be.

Wouter

Please read post

http://www.catsailor.com/forums/sho...;o=14&fpart=&vc=1&PHPSESSID=

For the result and the follow-up path.

Wouter

Compromise has been accepted.

From the 8 class officials 6 supporting votes, 2 abstinations and 0 votes against the compromise.

No comments were received from normal class members.

With this the compromise of adjusting the tipweight rule by lowering the limit and adding the words "and garanteeing fair racing" has been accepted.

I think we have a really good compromise here. We can show potential F16 sailors that we have a rule in place that will limit any advantage that a carbon mast is perceived to have. It will allow the bulk of the Stealth F16 owners to be compliant again. New boats will adhere to this modified rule. Also 6 kg for a minimum tipweight is pretty low and will allow a 60 kg and over skipper to right the boat singlehandedly by only using a righting line. It is also low enough to keep carbon mast builders happy while adding some glass to the layup to get up to weight. This glass layer will add to the seaworthyness of the carbon mast and you can do a pitchpole with that under spi without fearing snapping it as some A-cats sailors do. The continued use of the aluminium AHPC superwing mast is also garanteed with this rule as its tipweight is close enough to the limit.

I think this is a good compromise in all and all builders seem to agree on that as well as the class heads.

I'm happy to have brought this puppy to bed.

The new rule is effective from 1 march 2005, that is now !

Wouter

Well Rick If you could just talk Mary out of the car for the evening, you could come to the Tommy Whiteside Regatta and Duke it out with the Blade and another Taipan. We decided last night with the permission of the F-18 class we would start F-18's and F-16's together, Scored separately since this is part of www.powergroovesailing.com 's F-18 Carolina's Cup Series event.
BUT, the F-18's and F-16's can race the same course, in the same time, and there will be evidence of how well the heads up comparison of the Two classes perform against each other. Would be nice if we could get Matt McDonald up here too. I think Dave Powergroove is gonna ask him. We've had all this discussion of the Comparison, it's time to see it in action. You also can do a bit on the comparison at Catsailor, it's time to show up and promote the F-16 boats, cause we don't want this class to be a bunch of backyard trailer cats or lawn ornaments just sitting around "collecting dust and growing mildew".
Any of the rest of you want in?, or you gonna get out your dustrags for the season?
Cary
PS You Aussie Guys are respectfully excused from attendance in this one, We'll raise a glass in your honor.

BEWARE! Shallow water