Agent Orange

Folks,
A couple of days back I rxd this in my inbox.
An F16 built in Malaysia.

[img]http://www.catsailor.com/forums/download.php?Number=54171[/img]

Interesting.....

Is it a Blade?

I like the look of the main - quite an extreme squaretop. I wonder why the No4 batten pocket is so different to the others?

What do you know about its' history phil?

John,
It is a Blade.
I posted it because I like the look of the square top.
It is along the lines of what they are using on the F18s
and the later A class sails.
In my opinion the larger square top makes for quite a good looking sail plan.

Regards,
Phill

Looking at the sail and the panels, I would guess that the 4th Batten pocked is also a horizontal seam; If you look from the bottom panels up, you can see the seams moving up and forward from the clew, ditto if you look down from the head of the sail; they all appear to meet at the 4th Batten pocket.


PS John, the ECPR was 'interesting'

Is Malaysia a low-wind location ?

I wonder if the extra roach require extra mainsheet tension to stop it from twisting off, and some careful selection of battens?

It's fun to watch those Blades pop up all over! Is the extra roach within class rules?

Simon, so you reckon it's an optical illusion caused by a coincident seam? Yeah could be. Shame though 'cos it sort of spoils the look of the sail....

What do you mean by the ECPR being interesting?

The Nore Race was poor race for us from my point of view. We got a 6th but the two Spitfires and two Hurricane SX's that finished ahead of us (a Shadow beat us on h'cap) just simply ran away upwind in the Thames chop. We just couldn't seem to get the Stealth going. Although we gained on them for the return downwind it wasn't enough

ECPR next year

Not an optical illusion, I just think the cloth is double thickness there as there is a join I think



Well,

First couple of hours were VERY light and I was actually going quite well, I was in with the Tornado's and was quite happy that most of the rest of the fleet was behind me (I was the slowest boat in the Full ECPR fleet) all the way to the Bradwell gate. Just before I got there the leading 6 or 7 Tornado's got a puff of wind from somewhere and off they went single trapping; I sat there for another 30 minutes... Grrrr.....

Picked up the wind and then sailed the next 6 miles to Colne with the hull just in the air with me sitting by the mast, the rest of the fleet were slowly passing me (T's Spitfires F18 Hurricane etc). This is not the fastest conditions for the 17 !


Just past the Colne the wind shifted more south and up went the kite, out on the wire and then played "not enough hands" trying to play the kite, traveller (only about 100 yds room before the beach so needed to keep high as poss) and steer. Going nicely now but can see the Tornado's also pop their kites and romp away. Sail like this allthe way to Walton (12 miles).


Now, as I turn back from Walton the wind starts to build so I now cannot fly the kite on the way back (wind is now shifting back east slowly) but cannot trap either so I end up sailing back from Walton to Colne (via Clacton) without the kite up, but without enough wind to trap - again not optimum....I know I am loosing loads of time on this leg as I spotted the lead Tornado's romping back - estimate I am about 15 minutes behind when I leave Walton after approx 4 hrs sailing.

Once I get back to the Colne the wind is now building nicely and I set course for Bradwell, out on the wire and starting to move a bit now, Time has turned and the water in now shooting back into the Brightlingsea rinve and it's getting lumpy, 1/2 way across I put the kite back up (at last) and start to really motor out on the wire; Fairly big and confused waves make it excxiting and start to feel a touch vunerable out there on my own.

Wind starts to more more east and build even more, becomes shifty and gusty for a while; one big gust was a good F6 (spray of the top of the waves) and became exciting trying to sheet the kite in, bear off and still maintain control (later told same gust nearly blew a couple of T's off the hard at Marconi). Find the Bradwell gate (another 6 miles) and then set course for home. Wind still building (but not as large as the gust mentioned) and now really shifting with the tide underneath me.

The river is busy and get caught in a port/stbd off the stone and have to do a quick kite drop to survive (sailing over my kite sheets so have to stop and sort this out)

Wind continues bo build to a nice F4-5 and have a great trip back.

Finished in an elapsed time of around 5 1/2 hrs and sailed approx 50 miles, GPS reported tyop speed of 19MPH and I felt like I had been run over by A truck next morning.

50 miles on your own is a long way; I loved it (first time I've done the full ECPR on my own) and learned a lot.

C U Next year !

Phill, you have pasted in the wrong link


Wouter

Rules only limit the actual area and the maximum luff length when under cunningham load. So yes, (any) roach is class legal.

Notice the black coloured beams ? Carbon ?

Wouter

Yes, sail area is whats defined.
But as this is the first F-16 I have seen with such a roach, where did they remove cloth to compensate? Is the mast shorter or what??

It's an unusual look to it, I am so traditional I dont know if I like it yet.
Does anybody know what the idea behind the design is?

More sail area higher up to get the hull out in lighter winds. Hobie offer this type of sail on the Tiger for 2005.

Paul

Rolf,
As pointed out Hobie put this type of design on their Tiger and I'm told it really works well for them. Most of the F18s are moving in this direction now.
It is F16 legal, the area for the larger head comes out of the leach producing a fairly straight leach on the sail. If you have a look at an F16 sail with a smaller head you will notice the leach has much more of a round. Make it straight and you have all this extra sail area that you can put in the head.

Regards,
Phill

Ok, thank you. Must be nice in low wind conditions, but I look forward to hearing how it behaves in stronger wind and how they handle it

If the area in the top comes from straigthening the leach curve, the foot must be shorter to compensate? This might be a good thing if you are looking for power, as the bottom of a sloop sail is quite flat to compensate for the jib's backwind. Hmm, I mostly sail in low wind conditions (class illegal for me, but anyway)..

Is the F-16's first to market on this, or was the F-18's there first?

Sorry Simon, can't see that the sail would be double thickness there. Seams are typically only 1cm of overlapped cloth. That 4th batten area is clearly of the order of 5-6cm. The batten pocket would account for around 4cm. If there is a seam above or below the pocket that might explain the appearance (a coincident seam) but it is still a shame as it does spoil the look of the sail.

Surely those are just black painted or anodised beams Wouter? I can't see the justification for the cost of suitable carbon beams. It's not as if it hasn't already been demonstrated that an F16 can be built down to weight without compromising structure.

It does indeed look like a batten pocket laid under a horizontal seam between panels.

The glue used for laminates today are often 25mm and upwards wide. Its strong enough to eliminate stitching in smaller sails, so it might be something like that we see..

John,

Scooby is correct. If you dont have a full 50mm overlap in the cloth at the only horizontal seam the sail will not last long at all. Trust me I can tell you by experience.!!! Mylar sails can take some high loads depending on the fibre configuration, but stitching across the load of the panel will just pull through the fabric with out the assistance of some sail number ( or sticky back) to help hold the mylar together. If you look at some sail with a similar panel layout you will notice up to 5 runs of stitching just to keep the seam together.!!

While on this subject it will be interesting to see how many sailmakers will succeeed with the new contender "Maxx" fabric, as all seams will be cross cut & subject to high loads. Rolfe may be able to give all an idea on how he has approached this issue.??

A fellow had one made here ( a cross cut mylar sail with contender maxx febric)in Adelaide by a reputable sailmaker & against my advice he did not treat the cross seams with respect & the sail became flatter & flatter each time he sailed as the tapering in the seams were "straightening out" & the sail was a board & inverting in meduium to high winds. Needless to say the sail was only used 5 - 10 times & now useless.



Regards

Marcus

No experience with it yet. Hoisted our Maxx cloth sail first time on friday, but still have to install grommets for the battens, stretch and secure the bolt-rope and some other small stuff. If we can use it the coming week, I'll be pleased.
Marcus: I'll send you some photos once it's finished.


We used 25mm overlap between panels (cross cut layout), 25mm 3M special basting tape/glue for laminate construction and two rows of three stage zig-zag stitching. We also double folded all hems, and did some special reinforcing at the luff to take downhaul loads. Batten pockets are installed with 25mm glue and a single zig-zag seam over the panel seams (not optimum placement, but close enough for this try).
We hope this will be enough to hold the panels in position, but time will show.. I'll be sure to let you know if we have catastrophic results.


Macca have some practical experience with his Maxx sails now, so perhaps he could say something about it. Looking at the pictures he posted earlier in the 5.7 thread, it seems like they did a sandwich construction at panel seams integrating batten pockets, and further sandwiching at reinforcements etc. Interestingly enough, the reinforcement along the luff seem to be glued on..

Ref: http://www.catsailor.com/bb_files/49474-DSCF0441x.JPG
Ref: 5.7 Thread

Okay Marcus, I see what you are getting at.
Doesn't overlapping the cloth to such an extent create an anomaly in the stretch and flex characteristics of the sail though? I know that there is a batten at this point. So does that mean that this batten would need to be slightly lighter than would normally be used?
After all, you have now got one point in the sail which has two layers of cloth glued and stitched together (possibly with some sort of film or re-inforcing) plus a 40mm wide batten pocket stitched top and bottom and a batten all at a single point on the sail. Is this not an excessively 'hard' spot in an otherwise (relatively) flexible sail?

(as if modern laminate sails can be described as flexible )

I understand the principle of modern sail design with current cloths and the use of load paths, but looking at this F16 sail that 4th batten area just looks sort of disjointed and uncomfortable. The seams above and below the batten don't even quite line up?

As far as I know both the A-cat class and the F18's went down this road before us. That and more more experimental boats/classes. Maybe the new Tornado also.

It seems to be the latest trend. I personally like the looks of a straighter leech over my own curved one but Agent orange is pushing it.

But indeed, the large heads seem to be very competitive in teh F18 class. Powers them up in the light stuff and flicks off in the rought stuff.

However, you'll need to do alot of fine-tuning while sailing. I have the second generation mainsail. Meaning entlarge squaretop with respect to the standard Taipan and I notice that in changing winds I must trim, with the mainsheet continiously. It works very well but you have to do it otherwise you're either hooking or throwing away power.

Mind you I'm really beginning to get addited to this lively feel. I wrote I wrote this down a couple of times before. When I switch boats I always have to remind myself to not get frustrated when this other boat doesn't react as my own one.

We'll just have to see where this all ends up. For now there is alot of activity behind the scene with several homebuilders who by definition try out (new) stuff


Wouter

Asian boat has a twin several 1000's miles away

Because here in sunny Netherlands




Wouter

Not everything coming down the grapevine is true but ....

I can confirm thought that the black beams on the Dutch twin (Same orange coloured hulls) are black anodised alu.




Me neither, but for same owners, having such beams is just a statement that needs to be made.

Hi guys.

That Blade is actually at my club in Singapore (Changi Sailing Club) where we have a fleet of 20 Taipans and now hopefully a few Blades joining in too.

It has wood/epoxy hulls, Goodall wingmast rig. The main beams are carbon with kevlar inserts under the mast and no dolphin striker. The rear beam is 50/50 carbon/glass. The beams are carbon as these are cheaper than importing aluminium beams from AHPC for the Taipans.

The boat is being put together by Pro-sail Asia in Malaysia, the local Taipan agent as the costs of importing boats from Aus has gone through the roof due to a 30% change in the exchange rate!

I haven't seen the boat in action against the Taipans yet but it looks superb in the flesh.

Blobby wrote:


I find that incredible! There is reputedly a world shortage of carbon cloth that is now pushing up the cost of carbon parts and yet it is cheaper than imported aluminium beams?

On grounds of cost, if that is the reason in this case, I can understand using these beams over ali. But are there any performance advantages? I can't see what they'd be. In addition, surely using a 'different' technology to the 'norm' must increase the complications? What about beam attachment points, mast support, track attachment, trampoline mounting, through-beam fittings, etc. ?

What at first appeared to be a particularly nice looking Blade turns out to be pretty radical and not a little complex

Phill,

Can you repost those other photos of Agent Orange please? Thanks

My post got lost :

"I have relatives sho live in HK and importing anything into SE asia is a nightmare and expensive; it way well be tthat local carbon is cheaper than import Alu;

My next boat is going to be 99% carbon and the price change I've been quoted so far is only +150GBP if the boat is built out of the next batch - boat build is dependant on sail of the Inter 17 !

and your next boat will be...??

John,
Would you like the same photos posted or different ones.

Regards,
Phill

Scooby Simon has been guarding that secret very closely, but he has been dropping clues here and there...

He likes carbon

He lives in the UK

He like high performance

He knows John Pierce

He sails single handed

I'm going to guess:

He's having Stealth Marine design/build a carbon A-cat like boat with spinnaker.

John,
Here they are plus a couple of the others that I have.

No Dolphin Striker

Holding Post

Thanks very much for doing that Phill, BUT (wouldn't you know it) I particularly wanted the detail comparison shot of the mainsail heads

Sorry to be a pain.....

John,
No problem here it is.

There's one already - based on Stealth f18HT hulls, mast and sail smaller than HT but bigger than F16, F16 kite. Quick boat for a heavyweight...

Now, if you can find someone to buy the 17 I'll be able to get things moving and then let you all know what it's going to be. I don't have the budget to start the Design/development/build of "The Beast" without the sale of the 17

What a shocking revelation
For years Simon has been posting on the f16 forum and being one of KW's biggest supporters.
He gave the impression that he was trying to sell his I-17 in order to buy an f16.
But it turns out he is going to have a one-off, none-Class legal, carbon 18 footer built.
How ironic


Are there any other "pretenders" to the f16 class here?
Is any other regular poster pushing a non-f16 design here?

Hi Sam et al,

Actually Scooby Simon has never--in his public or personal communications with me over several months--said he was pursuing anything but a superfast 18 foot singlehander.

His current and future boats are "F16-like," and I have certainly enjoyed his input on this forum. (He's also got a nice car forum going in the UK too.)

There are several non-F16 sailors who regular this forum, as you know. Another example is brobru. This forum welcomes lurkers, posers, wish-they-had-a-boat-ers, pretenders, and other interested sailors and wannabe-sailors as long as they contribute in a productive way to the growth and milieu of cat sailing. I'm sure there's a lot I can learn from these folks even if the F16 class is not the right one for them.

I get calls and emails from people interested in the F16 class. Although sometimes it seems the F16 is being "pushed," most of the time it is just enthusiasm on the part of F16 sailors for the favorable attributes of the boats. (Our class is too small as yet for that to be a "selling point," as it might be for the Laser class, eg). In reality, I've steered some inquirers to other classes if their sailing needs really didn't match what the F16s had to offer. I've seen lots of people struggling on the beach with the wrong type of boat. So one of the purposes of this forum is to try to match interested sailors with the right boat/class for their interests/needs/skills.

Just trying to add a little perspective.

Fair winds,

You mean someone here jumped to a conclusion that was false?

Hmmm. Interesting.

Just out of curiousity, here's what the Taipan F16 looks like in Asia. It follows along the lines of Agent Orange sharing beams, trampoline etc...rudders are Taipan 4.9 and is a fully F16 optimsed rig. Both cats are at Changi Sailing Club in Singapore.

What is wrong with being constructive on a forum where some people like my input and value it. I am out to make friends with likeable catamaran sailors, not upset people.

I have never been a "Supporter" of Wouter, I just don't believe in having a go at people for no reason, I object you your tone.



Erm, no; I have told people that an F16 was a possible next boat; I never said "I am going to buy a F16", or "it is a strong possibility I will buy an F16". IIRC, I said the possibles were

1, F16
2, A class
3, M18
4, Inter 17R
5, Something else



Why is it ironic ? So it matters to you that I have decided to get something built that will fit what I want to do. And it will be class legal, it will measure as a catamaran and so will be able to race under the measurement rule we use in the UK for catamarans, and yes, for now it will be a one-off.



You ?



How am I pushing a non F16 design?; am I asking everyone to sell their F16's and join me ?

No.



Once the 17 is sold and the boat is in final design/decision and build I will start a thread in the general area to discuss it.

Simon,

You are definitely a student of KW, taking my comments out of context and stretching their meaning into something different.



I always have a good reason to "have a go" at KW, like his lying, exaggerating, hiding the truth.



Another stretch of my words.
I said "gave the impression".
Why don't you give us the links to your posts that talk about other boats.
You have been posting on the f16 forum and talking about it for years.
What sort of behavior would give YOU an "impression".

The irony isn't about the boat you want, it is about your whole non-f16 revelation.

What existing Class will it be legal for, the Scooby Class?
If you are going to start your own Class, maybe Rick will let you have your own forum.

Don't be silly.
Obviously, I am not "pretending" to any specific Class organiation.

You post on the f16 Class forum for several years and then one day you announce that an f16 isn't good enough, so you are going to have a custon one-off built.
But you don't call that a "push"?

"Taking comments out of context and stretching they’re meaning into something else", "telling lies, exaggerating, hiding the truth.” "Innuendo", now doesn't that sound just like, and describe some one, we all know down to a "tee" ?????

So have you Sam, are you considering a F16 cat?

OR Better yet.

What is your purpose on the F16 forums?

Sam,
It has finally become quite clear to me that your true goal is to destroy Rick and me and our forums and, as a result, our entire web site. I don't know what we have ever done to you to deserve this.

Sailing is a very fragile sport, and catamaran sailing is the most fragile of its segments. Why are you trying to chase people away from it?

I don't care whether sailors are Republicans or Democrats or Communists, lawyers or auto mechanics, Catholics or Protestants or Muslims -- and I don't even want to know any of that. In this venue all that matters is that people share a common love for sailing catamarans.

I know you love sailing, so why are you trying to make it look so meanspirited and ugly to others?

The only thing I can think is that you drink too much diet soda or are taking steroids or have a brain tumor (God forbid).

Rick and I really like you, and I don't understand why you don't like us.

How many years?, I have only been a member of this forum for just under 2 years, so that is not true. Check to the right, I joined "02/06/04". Now how many years is that ?

The boat will be a one-off (for now) and I will race it on handicap - do I have to have a boat that conforms to a classes rules ?



OK.

First one, Commenting on the problems I have had with Marstrom when invesitgating the M18 , more on the M18 and finally where I provide the list as above

Perhaps you will now go away Sam.

I guess it would be easy for folks to get the wrong impression though, unless you'd been really explicit and said something like "I don't have an F16 and I'm not planning to buy one".

Seriously I think this post sums it all up for us.

It is sad, that from such an awesome post "Agent ORange" a blade in Asia, it had to turn into a Sam vs all bickering. This comes to show, that sam is at a point where he seriously annoys a good ammount of members on this forum. We can count on MAYBE two hands the ammount of "Good" or "non-attacking" post from Sam. Same wake up and smell the coffee dude, what the heck is wrong? Is there anything we can do to help you? Why are you so bitter over everything? Actually NO, forget it, I dont care. Please whatever you do not answer those questions.

All post NOT related to the discussion as the title stated should get deleted.

Robi said:


But then hijacking a thread won't be fun any more!

So true!!! I take back what I said! LOL

Man, this cat is such a thing of beauty!

Ummm....



I notice Sam has not replied.

Simon,
Based on some of the other posts in this forum, I think it's now pretty clear that if Sam doesn't want to get banned he can't reply to a post like yours.

Let's all let it quietly drop and give the guy a chance.

Ummm..

The problem here is that Sam made some accusations at me (I was not talking about other boats and was only selling the 17 to buy an F16)that I feel I have to defend myself against. IMO Sam can answer my post above buy saying he was wrong ! I believe I have never suggested I was solely planning to buy an F16, if people think this, then I am sorry, I was investigating a number of options and have now made a decision that my one-off 18 footer is the way to go.

As far as the banning (or not) of people; I help to moderate a motoring forum where we do not believe in banning people, it does not work. I believe in education. People need to learn how to behave in these forums.

Sam has been subject of a bit of a backlash, justifiably IMO as he has come over in his posts (deliberately or not) as belligerent, argumentative and generally out-to-cause-trouble.

If he gets banned (which I do not support) he can just register another user name; If The IP he is using is banned he can easily change IP - Ergo, banning does not work.

What part of : "don't refer to Sam anymore" do you NOT understand.

If you don't support getting him banned than don't bait him. Do the honourable thing and from now on remain silent on the subject. Let Rick and Mary do their thing and get this issue out of the public sphere.

And note that we are all trying to solve this thing in the best way possible, don't make it harder on us than it needs to be.

Wouter

Sam who?

the comparison between the two mainsails shows the significant difference quite obvious.

In the last act of the AC the German United Internet Team skippered by Jesper Bank reached that event in last minute condition with the old mainhead shape Malcazone used in the last AC while all the top teams were using the bigger headsails. Lacking some power, after racing a few days with the old shape, Jesper Banks team showed up with a sail where additional sailarea was added to the old shape! It seemed that this helped them quite well in gaining performance.

I wonder if you can 'update' the old Taipan 4.9 sails (which have such a little square top that you can heardly call it one) the same way?

Just to comment some other raised questions here:
A wider/larger square top not only increases your light wind performance, but if cut and trimmed correctly, it also helps to open the leech earlier in gusts helping to auto-depower the rig (like surfsails are a good example for).

i think the profile of the godall taipan 4.9 sails are anyhow quite flat in the top, so prolonging the shape could work and one might need some harder battens?

any experience sailmaker around to comment on this?
could be a low-cost option instead of buying a new sail ... :-)

The "new" A class sails have increased the square top so much that, not only do some of them actually have no roach at all, I have seen one new A class sail that’s leech is actually slightly concave. The guys sailing them swear that is exactly what they do - increase the usable area in light airs and twist off better with more gust control in the heavier stuff. Surely the Taipans could "optimise" their sail cut for F16 (as opposed to "one design") by having their mainsails cut with a larger square top, from my personal observations, I think that their performance would only improve with such a change?

That's exactly what's been going on in windsurfing...see attached.

I spoke with a sailmaker about converting a Tornado pinhead to a squaretop a couple of years ago. He did not want to do it, and he tought it was a bad idea.
A friend asked Ullman sails Sicily the same, and they said sure. Turned out that they did not want/could not do it either, and sold him a nice repaired square top instead (Nothing wrong with Ullman Sicily, gave a really good price).

If I was to try this (I am _not_ a sailmaker), I would have buildt a new top section for the sail instead of just adding cloth.
I see several problems with this, one is knowing how much broadseaming is buildt into the old sail and how much draft the luff-curve makes, and making the two match in the new top.
Old and new cloth have different properties, so expect some trouble there as well.

For an example of how bad a conversion/repair can be, look at the link below. These guys had a new leach installed, and it's not backwinding..
http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=362479

Could be a fun little experiment to convert an old mainsail during the winter, without expecting to much from it..

I'm not to sure that I would consider "converting" an existing sail to a squarehead, I was thinking more along the lines of a new replacement sail when and if it was wanted/required. It would be a fairly "iffy" job to completely rebuild an existing top into a squarehead and a bit "hit and miss" I would have thought.

Yes Darryl, it would be an 'iffy' job, not something I would consider unless the sail is going to be converted to bags anyway

I tought a conversion was what Dirk asked about?

yes rolf,

but to be honest with refering to th AC I had something more useful than 'bags' in mind...


image shows GER 72 before modification in act 4 ...

GER 72 after mainsail-conversion in act 5

regarding the comment to the tornado sail,
the classical tornado sail did not has a
square top, so enlarging a small square top
to a larger one might be much more easy than
transforming a non square top sail into one!

Try contacting Marcus Towell (forum handle Marcus_W_Towell ) using the Forum PM mailing service. Chris Dean and he designed and build the Blade F18 sails and they seems to do very well. He could well help you out. Otherwise why just not contact Glenn Ashby himself ? Otherwise contact Phill Brander, he used to make his own sails as well and therefor may provide you with some helpful comments.

I personally agree with Rolf. It would be a nice experiment if they sail was about to be disguarded anyway. But I'm not sure whether it is an easy mod. Mostly because I fully expect that you'll need to restitch the seams up to, which may be a difficult job to do on a radial sail. And because the leech round for a squaretop sail apparently must be more straight to get the sail to work well. And the standard Taipan mainsail has quite a curved leech. On the other hand maybe if you straighten out the top 3rd of the leech you maybe able to get pretty close to what you need. Maybe all the curvature adjustment that you'll need can be forced into the top by carefully arc-ing the leech there and putting the right battens in. It will be quite a project though with a series of tryouts and intermediate recutting.

The area difference between the standard Taipan 4.9 mainsail and the new F16 compliant mainsails is just enough to simply add some 400 mm to the squaretop and have a triangle of extra cloth run down to about 2.5 mtr along the leech (= top 1/3 of mainsail).

Personally I like my F16 mainsail. I've only sailed with the standard Taipan mainsails on other peoples boats so my experience there is limited, but I have a feeling that the entlarged head on my mainsail really works. Also I got one of the first custom F16 mainsails (build 2003) on my boat and just as with Eric Poulsens boat I got quite a pronounced leech round, the newer mains have a far straighter leech by now. So yes maybe a standard Taipan main can indeed by recut and entlarge while still scoring improvements even though they may be less than getting a completely new main. Also my experience is that improvements are mostly in the control and handling of the sail. Straight line speed in stable conditions seems to be rather comparable to the standard Taipan main.

I do think however that downwind sailing WITHOUT a spi (something I almost never do anymore) is really helped by a large squaretop. It really seems to help induce a large twist along the leech allowing you to optimize drive all along the mainsail. Without it you always seem to either stall the top or undersheet the bottom.

Wouter

As the class chairman I must often be very careful with my comments on the different makes of boats. The problem of official impartiality.

However, this time I'm going to break this unwritten rule.

I have what is called a Taipan F16. It uses the Taipan 4.9 hull shape, Superwing mast and the new AHPC carbon rudder system and daggerboards. Everything else is F16 optimized. In summary I have a different and larger rearbeam, platform is wider, I have a selftacking jib, spinnaker setup, raised mainbeam for more clearence of the water and I've got a 2003 fully optimized 580 mm squaretop F16 mainsail. And then a score of little change like turnbuckles on my diamonds so that I can change the prebend settings between races without lowering my sails or tipping the boat over.

I've sailed and race this setup for a year now and can honestly say that this boat is a noticeable improvement over the standard Taipan 4.9. Although most improvements are made in how the boat behaves and less so in performance (with the exception of the spinnaker). The basic Standard Taipan 4.9 is a good boat and truly a fast boat. But when it comes down to some hard racing in tight fleets the F16 version (Not the Taipan 4.9 + spi) is just better.

Points that show noticeable improved :

-1- The trampoline area is alot more roomy then before. Actually with the selftacker the effective space was increased so much that I really don't see a need for a larger trampoline on the F16's. With the old jib system the trampoline was cramped, but with the selftacker it is absolutely right. Maybe even a bit large, probably could do equally well with less.

-2- The selftacker is a just a pleasure to sail. Quick tacks and gibes for two reasons. First : lots of room on the trampoline for the crew to move about. Secondly, less work to do for the crew in tacks and gibes. Often they can just swing themself inward, run to the other side (maybe pulling the new spi sheet with them), hook on and push themselfs out. This all seriously speeds up your tacks and gibes. Because of this improvement the boat keeps up its speed better through the manouvre and it is easily accellerated without changing any trim (mast rotation etc) away. If you ever challange a standard Taipan to a tacking or gibing duel then the F16 version with selftacker will win it, hands down.

-3- The new rearbeam, really works, although getting a stiffer mainbeam will work even more. The asian Taipan F16 (see picture) is probably what needs to be done to the basic Taipan design. It really helps platform stiffness.





-4- The larger squaretop mainsail works.

-5- The raised mainbeam (25 mm higher on the decks on my boat) really works. Those 25 mm do make a difference.

-6- The spinnaker addition is the single biggest performance and handling improvement that can even be made to this boat. The boat is significantly better to control downwind and it really keeps the bows out. The speed increase is of course really big.

-7- Sheeting the mast rotation of the trampoline instead of the boom is in my opinion another improvement that needs to be incorporated in all F16's. It allows full depowering when letting the main traveller out. Something that is less pronounced with the old system. It also cuts down on complexity.

-8- Extra width. Extra room on the trampoline and more leverage in a blow.

The Taipan 4.9 was really due for an upgrade of this magnitude. It just gives the design a new lease on life. Sure the hull shape is of a different timeframe, but with these mods the boat is very much on a level with the newer designs. Something that testifies to the excellence of the basic design and the superwing rig. But even such good designs must every now and then go with the times and decide to upgrade.

AHPC is going partly the way by offering what they now call the "Taipan Hunter", but my advice to any new customer is to not settle for anything less than a fully optimized Taipan F16, with all the mods as described above. These mods are all well worth the money. And the One-design class rules of the Taipan 4.9 have absolutely no meaning outside of Australia itself for we are never going to get a OD standard Taipan class going outside of Australia. The windown of opportunity for that was in in 1999 and 2000 and honestly "we" and AHPC completely missed that window. Now it is "1 F16 please" or "No thank you, I will buy boat from another builder"

Wouter

Dirk, I guess the germans re-did the broadseaming and luff curve in the top of their sail as well as adding cloth to the leech. No big deal for them, as they have sailmakers on their project and accurate computer models + plotters/cutters. It's a different ballgame to do it at home, based on measurements and guesswork


Without re-doing the head area (as Wouter describes) the results will probably be dysmal. The profile/draft will not be in the right place, and the extra cloth will probably just add drag and possibly a hooking leech. The idea behind the extra-square tops is to add more power in the top and you need to adjust draft to accomplish this. I still think it would be easier to just cut off the top meter, meter and a half or more, and put on a new top. Much easier than fiddling with manually re-cutting radial panels. But this is something that demands a powerful sewing machine where you can adjust thread tension to a very high setting (i.e. industrial machine, if you dont want to try superbonding, but thats out of scope here).

Perhaps Marcus or Phill have some creative ideas..

Dirk, Wouter & Rolf,

If you simply add the extra 700mm to the head of the old "pin" head Tornado sail, you will only gain about 50% of the potential. If you think about it, the extra sail cloth will only push the max drive point further forward & this can only be rectified by re-working the broadseaming ( as Rolfe Nislen suggested). I think sailmakers would generally prefer to either add sail cloth or make a new sail, as to re-work the seams in the head of an old sail would be very time consuming & a "stab in the dark". I inherited a modified ullman main with the marstrom tornado that I bought, which all they did was make the last radial panel larger to the wide head. I'm sure at the time the owner was satisfied mentally, but not performance wise !!!

BTW - we are going to further modify this sail for the first sail for our blade 16 to see how everything settles down.!!

Trusts this helps.

Marcus

@wouter

otherwise you missed this nice 'modernization' for a better steering and boats behaviour...

anyhow, is there some place you can download the class rules (and please don't refer to any geocities site, which are blocked by the Chinese government...)?

15m² mainsail includes the mast surface area? anyone knows how much is the mastsurface area of a standard 4.9 superwing?

thanks!

No. You may have canted hulls if you want to. Even canted daggerboards and to a larger degree than the A-cats may have.

We are actually more open in this respect than the A-cats.




It appears that the spinnaker boats are not helped as much by canted as the A-cats. All F18 catamaran design's have gone back to non-canted hulls even though it is allowed to cant in the F18 class. From an economic point of view, canted hulls are an unattractive issue.

Personally I have never really seen canted platforms excell in the F18 class or other classes except the A-cats. Certainly not enough to warrant the additional costs. For this reason I don't expect to see it being introduced to the F16's any time soon.

But it is very much allowed. So homebuilders, this may be a field that you can still be unique in.





I think I will ask for a class member to convert the class rules to PDF format. Mark Woudenberg are you up to it ?


Dirk can you read Word 97 files ? If so then I can probably e-mail you the rules.





I just measured the circumference of it on a piece of mast section I have here at home: 340 mm is the circumference.

For the F16 compliance you'll need to multiply the maximum luff length of your mainsail with the halve of the circumference. We are a little different in this then the A-cats that just take the area over the whole mast. We only include the part of the mast that is acting as the leading edge of the sailarea behind it.

I'm guessing you have a flat on the bottom of your mainsail so in your case max luff = 8050 mm by 170 mm = 1.3685 = 1.37 sq. mtr.

This means that your mainsail in actual area (excluding the boltrope in the luff which is inside the mast track) may be 15 - 1.37 sq. mtr. = 13.63 sq. mtr. and not a fraction bigger.

I hope this helps.

Wouter





thanks!

I printed the rules section from the F-16 web site to .PDF files.

I can .zip them and e-mail to anyone the wants them.
The zip file isn't very big, about 265KB

Send me a private e-mail at catsailor.

e

Marcus, have you seen the sail on Peter Holdsworths new A class?? That looks to me to be the way of improving the performance of the "square top"sail for the full range of conditions, have you given thought to going down that road for the mainsail for your new Blade F16?

Thank you Wouter!

yes please send me the word file!

that is great news for allowing canted hulls
(although homebuilders would have it much easier if they would be allowed to glue them instead of screwing them. I just heard from an australian taipan sailor that the bolts on the standard taipans rear beam shear off quite often and the front beam quite often also get cracks... so maybe something to reconsider/discuss 2008).

by the way, the first Taipan F18 who dominated the Round Texel at his first introduction was significantly canted.

The problems with the heavy F18 however is that they spend a lot of time with both hulls in the water, a state you leave with a lightwind orientated design like the A-class much earlier... Sill I believe that the Aicher+Egner F18 is canted but I am not sure about the Capricorn? By the way, the Marstroem A-Cats are still uncanted and always also are close to the front in light winds, but anyhow difficult to compare as they are very different hulls with even a much more different mast and sail than the rest of the fleet...

Having sailed uncanted and canted hulls I believe as soon as you lift a hull the canted hull is just so much more fun to sail, specially with the flat planning hull shapes of nowadays designs.

what is actually happening with the bimare f16 whose mast/sail is based on current A-class designs? Will this boat also be 'grandfathered' for a while?

In principal although I do not like so much the low cost approach of bimare it seems that this boat with a modern design might be one of the cheapiest and lightest ways to make it into the 16foot world... but with a to tall mast and no jib (so actually much less sailarea, but very reasonable decisions seen with the ventilo 20, the bim 20, marstroems m20 or the f18ht before) this boat of one very experienced mass production builder choosed definitely a different way than the current class rules are about...?

for now on, who is building f16 cat rigged big square top mainsails to fit to the standard 4.9 taipan superwing mast?

- Ashby Sails (for sure)
- Godall (as seen with agent orange)

- Steven Brewin?
- Landenberger One design?
- others?

kind regards

Dirk

p.s. any solution to give the growing China fleet access to the F16 site?

Any on-line photos of that sail Darryl?

Look into your PM mail box

Are you willing to help us out making another PDF file, one with a summary of the F16 class that we can use as a promo flyer.

I'm thinking about something along the line the Mosquito guys are doing at :

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~mosquito/mozzie_flyer.zip

We can really use a online Flyer like that.


Wouter

I can't speak to the question of cat-rigged sails specifically, but I can tell you that Vectorworks are supplying their Blade with Ullman sails.

Mark.

Dirk,

Look into your catsailor PM inbox.

There is a link to a website that you possible can access containing the class rules.
If that doesn't work then I'll send you a file by e-mail.



We are building up a new website, although sadly enough it is going really slow because we need more hands to get all the work done. Both Robi and I are too limited in time to do everything quickly. So please fellow F16 sailors help us out.




But you know the reason for that decision. It was either reduce our overall width to 2.30 mtr or disallow glueing of the beams. We chose to keep the F16 performance up. Something I know you appreciate because otherwise you couldn't have imported those secondhand boats to Shanghai ! The standard Taipan 4.9 is also to wide to fit into a container with the beams glued permanently into place.

Risking repeating myself, I would like to add that the F16 class rules are alot more performance oriented then many sailors understand them to be. They certainly allow more freedom then the F18's/F20's and in many respects the F16's come quite close to the freedom of the A-cats. In some cases we allow more freedom than the A-cats, example of the last are the canted daggerboards.

So often if you think that something is not allowed, then you'll find out that it actually is.





This is known to us for a long time. Personally, I still have 8 mm bolts at the rear and they are holding. When I see stuff happening there I'll just drill out the holes and put 10 mm bolts in. That should solve the problem.

The mainbeams cracks may occure sometimes and I'm keeping a close eye on that but the Taipans I've seen personally didn't develop these cracks yet. We have been pressuring AHPC to upgrade the Taipan design in various aspects and the beams are one such thing. You will note that the builder in Asia of the Blade F16 and the Taipan F16 is using round beams both at the rear and front. This something that AHPC should consider as well. Certainly homebuilder should do that.

Actually Harry, a homebuilder near to me in the Netherlands, is using a section of a broken Nacra F18 mast that I could lay my hands on. This modification should by a sufficient answer to the possibility of developping any cracks. It also should add extra stiffness to the whole boat. Homebuilders should consider this option.

With regard to reconsider/discuss in 2008, this is design issue and not a class rules issue. Class rules allow such mods already and have always allowed it in the past. And in case of the Asian builder, he is already adressing these points. Blade and other design were already beefed up. It is now more a legacy issue of the standard Taipan 4.9's than of new F16's.





I know, the nacra Inter-18 is also canted, it successor the nacra F18 isn't. But none of the new F18's are. Tiger never was and that design is still going strong. Cirrus never canted their boats and all in all it seems to not make a noticeably difference in the performance of the F18's.

In the F16 class we'll just leave it to the builders to decide wether they will cant or not.





Not anymore. F18's with their new large squaretop sails lift their hulls rather soon especially when the crew sits lower on the tramp to clear the luff hull.

I personally think some other physical thing is prevent canting from being noticeable on these doublehanders. Possibly the enertia of the 2 persons and the boat, which is relatively much higher than the A-cat + 75 kg crew combo, is making the canting effect all but neglectable. Something is happening that just kills it.




Capricorn is not canted. Aicher+Egner will probably try canting because of the A-cat experience and will in a few years abandon the idea as it will make their boat more expensive than can be justified by a (non-measureable) performance increase.





So describe to us what happens when you cant a hull ? What was the difference that you felt. Personally I've sailed a canted F18 a few times and a uncanted one and I couldn't really notice any difference.





It is not part of the core F16 class anymore because it is not compliant with the class rules. But it can continue to invoke the grandfather rule for a long time to come. But then again so to can boats like the FX-one.





Simply put; a fully optimized F16 will nail the Bim 16 with an A-cat rig around the the bouys when double handed. And Bimare has agreed to that much in writing as well. Of course when singlehanding the situation is much more equal. I don't believe for a second that performance dictated the decision to not have a jib. Sure enough the mainsail is more efficient without the jib, but that is not the same as saying that a (smaller) F16 cat-rig is faster than a F16 sloop rig. Because it simply isn't. The jib has coped alot of bad press of the last few years because of misleading claims propelled by cat-rig fans, but as a matter of fact the jib makes the rig more powerful and faster, also upwind ! Why else would the Americas Cup boat still use a jib if it wasn't faster ?

The whole issue comes down to the criterium. For a GIVEN FIXED total sailarea limit then a Cat-rig setup may be faster around a course than a sloop rig (but not always !); for a given platform setup (thus allowing more sail area to be featured when adding a jib) then a sloop rig is faster around a course.

Of course one can ALWAYS put more sail area on a boat when using a main + jib than one can when using ONLY a mainsail.

And this is where a cat-rig will always fall on its face.

When we made the F16 class rules we focussed on the best performance we could get with relative simple means. Adding jib was just one of those "simple means". We were not biased towards mimicking the A-cat setup because of emotional considerations or because we wanted to share the use of components that were orginally designed for another boat/class. Boats like the FX-one suffer from the last as well and it just produces a less optimal boat then can be had.

It is my opinion that Bim made different decisions in this respect. And we, the F16 rule makers, can understand the grounds for those, but that doesn't mean that we agree with them.

Of course equality with the F18 boats was a big goal of ours and sharing the same rig setup is a very important aspect in this.

So we parted ways.

Still rumour cirquit has it that our ways could meet up again. And the F16 class rules will not be changed, so make your own projections for the future.


[quote]
for now on, who is building f16 cat rigged big square top mainsails to fit to the standard 4.9 taipan superwing mast?

- Ashby Sails (for sure) [color:"red"] Yes for sure [/color]
- Goodall (as seen with agent orange) [color:"red"] Naturally, upon request though, otherwise you get the standard 4.9 mainsail [/color]
- Landenberger One design? [color:"red"] I seem to remember that Landy made a few sails for the Swiss Taipans, not sure wether he has made a F16 main for the superwing mast section yet. He does for the Stealth F16's [/color]

- Ian Markovich (redhead sails australia) [color:"red"] He made my mainsail and those for the first American Blades [/color]
- Ullman sails USA (Jay Glaser) [color:"red"] The new US blades will be fitted with these. [/color]

This should be choice enough I think. 4 very well respected and international sailmakers

Wouter

Hi Wouter,

I have been trying to get around to doing Flyer for promotion of F16 in OZ, found the Mossie one very popular, always carry copies to regattas to place on Notice Boards and leave on boat for people to pick up, very handy saved a lot of talking. As if that would be a problem

Was intending to condense the article I have written for OZ mags. It could be used as a template for other countries just replace local info. Will post it when I get it together probably with Tim's help he did alot on article also.

Regards Gary.

Hi Dirk,

some F16 already have canted hulls. My "Altered" A class has the canted hulls it was designed as a A with.

I must say the detraction of canted hulls given current thinking. Is that with a standard hull, when your hull lifts the centreboard is canted to windward giving more lift. With the canted out hulls when you lift a hull the centreboard is actualy vertical in the water so does not give the extra lift of standard hull. What is realy needed is hull canted out, centreboards canted in, the best of both worlds?

I do agree with you that the fat bottom hulls do feel better flat on the water when flying a hull which canted hulls allow. But the difference in performance, who knows. Looks cool though

Regards Gary.

Gary,

If you guys could do that then that would be extremely helpful.

If we all do 1 or 2 things like that then we can get this whole thing up and running in no-time.

Any change of posting the article for that Aussie Mag as well. I would love to read it. If possible can you send me a copy of the issue that contains the article. I'll be willing to pay for it. It will become part of my collection and the F16 class archive.

Wouter

Wouter et al,

Do you still need some things converted to PDF's

If so drop me a PM and I can send you my e-mail addy and I can do this PDQ

I believe the Glasers have started their own loft now:

http://www.glasersails.com/

if anyone is interested in helping me out with the transfer of the context over to the website, drop me a pm.

You must have some experience with CMS, and some knowledge of basic HTML language.

All volunteers welcomed. I cannot get to it until this weeked. Anyone willing to step up, by all means let me know.

Logo of glaser looks a lot like the old SMYTH or DANGER logo.
Are they still in business ?

JH

just like Dirk ex. A-cat (NED 6), and now F16 (to make it possible to sail with my son)and enjoying a nice Blade with Ashby sail

Rolf, although I am not superstitious (not much anyway) I would still never photograph a sail with THAT number on it (oops I think I hear the devil calling for my soul at the "cross roads")?

Agent Orange/Rhino Grey F-16's in Southeast Asia.
Have been watching the debate on the sails re: super big head etc...here are some of our ideas.

The sails on Agent Orange and Rhino are from Goodall's although we do have a set of Ashby's (blue Pentex) that we haven't tried yet. We know these sails will change our fleet forever as owners of the one-design Taipan will be upgrading their kit in a matter of time. The 'new' sails are a vast improvement over the 0ne Designs in terms of outright efficiency across the entire wind range.

Rigs are fully 'transplantable' i.e. we could lift the rig straight off Agent Orange and it fits right onto the Rhino Gret Taipan F-16. That's where we see the outright benefit of playing with the F-16 platform here and at the end of the day it will really show up the advantages/disadvantages off one hull shape over the other.

At the end of the day, we hope to have a fully developed platform that we can ship across to Europe next year so that sailors from our Fleet in Singapore can gain some valuable experience by racing in Europe.

The sails fit straight onto the standard Goodall Wing as used on the Taipan - no the mast isn't shorter as someone commented. I'd expect to see our entire 1-design (20 Taiapns) fleet to 'convert' to the new rig over the course of the next year.

As per the discussion on the website, we're trying to get F-16 happening in Southeast Asia and so we set up www.formula16-asia.org sometime back. It will be updated shortly as we now have enough development taking place locally to warrant more attention.

We've already seen how the new 'flat bottom' shape like the Blade is a big step forward in the manoeuvering stakes i.e. especially tacking where it is amazing. We've also seen how much improved the self-tacker on the Taipan is compared to the one-design! The trampoline now has a useful area and tacks are so much faster - something we weren't really expecting, but a nice bonus all the same!

Sounds all healthy for the class SkunkWORX and with 20 odd Taipans it really gives you opportunities for one hell of a good competitive "test bed" for any innovations. There is just one small point that I would make regarding ALL the fleet "upgrading" to the same sail plan etc, often it is better if there are at least two diametrically opposed lines of thought that are followed for advancements in this type of experiment/development as it then continually throws into the pot new ideas that can be tested against each other, and that way, the advancement can often be quite dramatic and far reaching in the shortest period of time, far better than everyone following the same single line of thought? Competition is healthy in all things. Just my thoughts on formula "development"

If we are not careful, us Europeans need to go to Asia to gain valuable experience racing F16's.

We have an issue in the European F16 class that seems incredibally difficult to kill. The class is well received and by now many believe in it and even want to buy a F16 boat, however getting a dependable supply line going seems to be harder then changing lead into gold.

Also we truly need to supply FULLY-OPTIMIZED F16's, Europeans don't want anything else and I don't blame them with the competitive F18 market right on their doorstep. Ergo the time for the standard Taipan 4.9's with a spinnaker addition (Now called Taipan Hunter) are over. Over the last 5 years we have seen to much development in the F16 class. The really sad part is however that the Taipan basic design is not at all outdated, it just needs to be updated with a modern suit of sails (+selftacker) and some better beams. Then it is still remarkably competitive. Just as you have done with the Rhino Taipan F16. A score of us have been telling this to everybody over the last years. But for some reason, the One-design mentality is again allowed to do its destructive work. The standard 4.9 was competitive 5 years ago but by disallowing it to move with the times it is slowly falling more and more behind the rest of the catmaran fleets which are simply dominated by the formula based classes like the F18's, A-cats and also the Tornado's (more formula oriented than one-design).

In all honesty the standard OD Taipan 4.9 is a dead end in the international scheme of things. Not because of the performance potential it arguably still has but because somebody is tying one of its arm to its back for no good reason. (Taipan) F16 is about to explode into an truly big class if only we can hook up buyers with boats.

The Blade F16 and Rhino Taipan F16 are completely the way we should go. When do you think will the production line be up and running ?





Ain't that the truth ! It almost feels like a completely new boat doesn't it. Can you believe that there are fans of the old jib system still around ?! There is not much I disliked about the original Taipan 4.9 but I serious had no appreciation for the standard 4.9 jib system. It just took away from the excellence of the overall design. One of those things that make you go "uhhh". It is also such a dissonant with the other fitting that are arguably developped with lots of attention to detail and intended use.

I personally think the basic Taipan design has another 10 years of live in it as long as it is allowed to go with the times. I'm very happy that I decided to homebuild my Taipan F16 At least then I could do all the stuff than the platform needs for coming decade.


Wouter

It will be a long while before we attain the standard of European racing but, it is fun trying and we do have a year-long summer to boast of!

The T 4.9 is one incredible boat - it still has life but only as an F-16! The self tacker transforms the boat totally and is well worth the effort.

We're almost of the mind to start converting the standard T 4.9 platforms to full-spec' F-16's (2.5m beam etc...) We just want to make sure our carbon beams are the right match and then...away we go!

Certainly our other carbon items are right on not just lighter but impervious to our environment where the alloy tends to corrode out rather quickly. And so, the boat looks very tidy with the 'black' boom spinn. pole etc...

We attempted some kevlar chain plates but these proved not as reliable (yet) as the good old stainless steel ones. By comparison, the Kevlar chain plates weighed only grams and so it might take a little more time to get the kevlar plates to settle properly.

I'd hazard a guess and say that within the next 6 months we will see an F-16 go into fibreglass production here in S.E Asia. In the meantime the wood-epoxies are getting good attention as they have helped us pull the price of Formula sailing down here in Asia and that alone is helping to build the Fleet again.

There are lots of things going on here the least of which we are trying to get a suitable location for a good F-16 regatta. Developments of last week, it looks like we may have found a very good venue. In the meantime, we will be having a F-16 Challenge in the peak of our Monsoon (Feb' 06). This will be a 60nmile race from a Club in Singapore around a lighthouse and back. It's a 30nm beat follwed by a 30nm run! The record time is so far, 5hrs 10mins - but I'm sure the times will tumble as we are onto a 3rd generation spinnakers!

Thanks Darryl for your ideas. Operating out of here often leaves us in the dark with sailing developments plus there aren't that many people with too much time on their hands here to put into their liesure pursuits. Any comments on how to improve things for us are graciously accepted.

I can see the benefit of having 2 lanes of development. Although we've had a cat fleet here for more than 20 years i.e. Hobie-Nacras-Taipan-F16's now we are still in our infancy. Currently it is good for us to get our platforms 'standardised' but we are openly encouraging any F-16 as it can only make things more interesting. From an organisational point of view, it's very simple. From the sailors point of view, it's a lot more fun. All we need is a LOT more sailors. Then we can delve into more development.

I think our impetus is really to get a few platforms up to 'speed' and then try our luck in Europe.

I guess having some with Goodall sails and some with Ashby's doesn't really constitute diametrically opposed lines but we are hoping that we'll be able to develop a competitive sail here...dreams maybe, but worth a try nonetheless.

Wouter,

In an earlier post describing key improvements for a fully optimized F16 vs T4.9 you included:

-7- Sheeting the mast rotation of the trampoline instead of the boom is in my opinion another improvement that needs to be incorporated in all F16's. It allows full depowering when letting the main traveller out. Something that is less pronounced with the old system. It also cuts down on complexity.

On which fully optimized F16 boats is this standard (ie, Blade, Stealth, etc)? Is this implemented so one can control mast rotation from either trap (along with DH)?

I'd also be interested if there's any links you know of which describe the details of the rigging of these boats (ie, how the stock spi hoist/snuffer rigging is implemented, etc).

Thanks,

Jerry

Vectorworks Blade F16. European Blade F16 is still deciding what to do.

Stealths and Taipans sheet the rotation of the boom. In case of the Stealth I don't think it matter much, this is because its mast behaves differently from the superwing sections as featured on the Taipans and Blades.

Also note that my comment refers ONLY to boats that are sailed WITH a spinnaker. On boats without the spinnaker an argument can be had how the system that sheets the rotation of the boom is more attractive. It all comes down to the way a spinnaker changes the boats behaviour. Flying the spi negates certain points and thus elevates other points.





On the Vectorworks Blade F16 = Yes.




There aren't such link really. Just look really carefully at the pictures made of these boats. Often you can puzzle back how things work. Also it is easily enough to modify a stock setup yourself. I'm sorry that I can't be of more help here.

The builders themselfs are this first point of contact for these questions. I'm still doing all this pro-bono.

Sorry,

Wouter

Robi has done a great job by publishing a lot of pictures which show how the Blade is set up. It would be very helpful and also will promote the class if there would be an even more extensive rigging or assembly guide. Of course the producers could do something about this. As an example Hobie has an assembly manual on the web:

http://www.hobiecat.com/support/pdfs/fxoneassy.pdf

Pictures tell often more than a lot of words

Wouter and Sjon,

Thanks for the great input.

It's amazing how much better a well rigged boat feels and sails than one that's not set up as carefully. Although I like rigging and have completely re-rigged boats in the past, I'd rather spend my time sailing. There's a lot of value added to having a boat well rigged from day one by the manufacturer so things won't have to be substantially changed by every user. Although it's true that some things are a matter of personal taste, its also true that some things work reasonably well for most people and others work poorly for nearly everyone so I'd hope that these excellent boats are set up more in line with the former. Having well designed line handling systems that are accessible from the right part of the boat, that keep excess line out of the way (ie, via bungee return), that are fast to rig and takedown, and that don't get tangled and/or fall overboard let you enjoy the boat more and keep your head out of the boat. Especially when singlehanding I can imagine that the spi hoist/douse system is cruicial. Why make eveyone reinvent the wheel? I think what I'd really like to see is a few different rigging options for critical systems (based on the collective experience of what works well) at the time of a new boat purchase - although some implementations would be more expensive I'm sure that many people would opt for them if that's what they really wanted since it would still be less expensive in the long term compared to paying for things to be rigged one way and then paying again (in time and materials) to redo it. And that's not counting the time and money spent on experimentation...

Jerry

Interesting posts, I get the general consensus opinion that a self tacking jib frees up space on the tramp, lets the crew focus on the main and improves tacking. Sorry for my ignorance but how do I convert from the standard Taipan configuration to a self tacking system. Does any one have a picture that shows a self tacking system so that I can work it out?

Converting is actually relative easy. You'll need to a drill and a good rivet tang that can blind rivet 4.9 mm monel rivets. You can't use plain alu rivets as then you'll just pull the track of the beam. Apart from that you'll just have to invest some time to carefully position the track in the right place.

AHPC can supply the selftacking track and required fittings and I must say that this track (that I have on my own boat) work well. All the other stuff is just standard Ronstan gear.

1 new jib cut for the selftacking system (I don't know know if the old jib can be recut)
1 curved track (AHPC)
1 car + small block attached
8 monel rivets
4 small blocks or 2 cheek blocks + 2 small blocks (depending on how you inmplement the sheeting system)
piece small (about 3mm )diameter line (for final stage of cascading purchase in sheet line)
piece of larger diameter line (about 6 mm) (for first stage of cascading purchase in sheet line)
2 360 degrees swivelcleats (RF57)

possibly a piece of 5 mm bungee line and a plastic or alu ring. This is used to pull the sheet line tight to the tramp while leading it all the way back to close to the rearbeam. This is handy in high winds as then both crew and skipper are way back on the boat and you really can't get the jib sheet if it stays near the mainbeam.

Personally I advice that you'll use a 4:1 purchase in the sheet line. I sailed with 2:1 for a while but that is just too little. Also with 4:1 you can more accurately control the jib sheet. With 2:1 very small adjustments on the jib sheet create big movements of the jib leech. It is too sensitive then. I know old jibs do fine with 2:1 but the selftackers really like a 4:1 system. Additional costs are just 1 small block ; about 12 AUS$ so why not have a 4:1 system over a 2:1 ?



I think I build my selftacking system (excl cost of the jib sail itself) for 200 Euro's (=about 300 Aus$) and as such it is just as expensive or even slightly less expensive as making the old system.





Take a look at the drawing. This is the setup I have right now and I'm very happy with that. Blue is the larger diameter sheet line (first stage) and red is the thinner diameter line (second stage) Grey is the jib sail itself. Bladck is the track. The thin black line near the rearbeam is the bungee cord. You'll need to have a spi pole of a short replacement pole goign from the mainbeam to the bidles wires to sheet a selftacker on a Taipan 4.9. This will also allow you to bring the foot of the jib sail below the bridle strop and win back a sizeable amount of jib area that you will loose when removing the overlapping part of the jib. This pole is a 30 dollar item. If you sail with a spinnaker already then you have this pole already. But just short 1.5 mtr pole to the bridles will work too if you don't sail with a spi. Must not forget the bridle strut though.

Anyway, AHPC and some other first lead the jib sheet from the cleats to the base of the pole and then forward to the small blocks at the tack of the jib. I think this is without good reason. First you'll have to have more small blocks (= extra cost) and you have added work. But also the jib sheet load is highest in strong winds when both the crew is way back on the boat, especially in reaching or going downwind without a spinnaker. In my setup the jib sheet goes through the swivel cleat in a perfect straight line if the crew is way back on the luff hull and right on the mainbeam. Ergo there is no friction because the line doesn't angle inward through the guiding eye of the swivelcleat. THis makes careful sheeting just a bit easier. Also the jib sheet line is now away from other line running along the spi pole lihe the external spi halyards and the jib luff tensioning line. (no foil ups)

Also the way the jib sheet runs over the trampoline means that the skipper can bedn forward and grap the jib sheet and adjust it. Something that the skipper WILL do when the crew is playing the mainsheet. And this reversal of sheets is VERY FAST when done right.

The bungee is tied a little bit different then what you would expect but there are good reasons for it. The bungee is tied paraller to the rear beam and it runs through the ring (free) just like the jib sheet itself. Now the bungee will pull the jib sheet towards the rearbeam (=tight) but it will not pull it to the centre of the rearbeam when the skipper lets it fall on the trampoline after or when he is/has adjusted the jib. This make handling it more comfortable. You also need less sheet line as the ring itself will move about the trampoline in an elliptical arc. Always keeping it relatively tight while allowing sheeting from nearly anywhere on the trampoline.

My advice is to start with this setup and see if you like it as well. I have gone through several setups and this is the lastest version and I'm actually pretty satisfied with. I think that I'm keeping it.

In teh conditions I had over the last months it had to work very well or you were in alot of trouble. We consistantly has over 20 knots of wind during our races with a very confused and rought seastate.

In the follow up posts are some photographs.


Good luck

Wouter

..

..

..

Your might want to take off that excess Duralac with some MEK, Acetone or White Spirit. Contains Barium Chromate,
MSDS link
http://www.llewellyn-ryland.co.uk/downloads/duralacm.pdf

Darryn

Yep, we were a little bit in a hurry to get that rail on. Probably will clean up the mainbeam next year. All the other points were cleaned up immediately.

Wouter

Wouter,

Many thanks for the detail. Your system looks very efficient. .I'll get in contact with AHPC. It sound like I might as well install a spinnekar pole while I'm at it and go for the total transformation.