Forum Index |  Albums |  Classified Ads |  Catamarans For Sale |  Calendar |  Submit Events
Announcements
New Discussions
Adding a Jib to a Mossie
by Gary Fleming. 12/07/17 11:29 PM
F101 finally in production
by Jake. 12/05/17 06:49 PM
Tradewinds Regatta?
by samc99us. 12/05/17 04:30 PM
Easy way to really learn the Racing Rules
by Mike Fahle. 11/28/17 07:30 AM
Dynema trap lines diameter?
by mmadge. 11/25/17 08:10 AM
foiling chasing UFO
by northsea junkie. 11/23/17 03:12 AM
New Mystere 4.3 in Central Florida
by Mike Fahle. 11/22/17 04:46 PM
36th America's Cup
by waterbug_wpb. 11/21/17 12:10 PM
Fatality During Clipper Race
by Redtwin. 11/20/17 07:56 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
#149938 - 07/19/08 07:33 PM New Draft rule  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Using the results of the last couple of weeks voting and discussion I've drafted this.

Thoughts?

--Advertisement--
#149939 - 07/19/08 11:46 PM Re: New Draft rule [Re: ]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Luiz has sent me some wording tweeks (thankyou), however, I'll wait to hear from others before making changes (so I don't have to do it too many times).

#149940 - 07/20/08 03:11 AM Re: New Draft rule [Re: ]  
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 255
RetiredGeek Offline
enthusiast
RetiredGeek  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 255
NZ
The only thing I have an issue with is the 30 liter volume, thats about 50% higher than my round bilge design and as I just secured a builder for it, I'd like that to continue.
You might want to amend the 6m black band rule on the mast as it can't be seen with a pocket luff sail.
Cheers
RG

#149941 - 07/20/08 07:55 AM Re: New Draft rule [Re: RetiredGeek]  
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,305
Luiz Offline
veteran
Luiz  Offline
veteran

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,305
Asuncion, Paraguay
Quote
The only thing I have an issue with is the 30 liter volume, thats about 50% higher than my round bilge design...


In order to keep a 50+ kg boat from sinking when flooded, it is necessary to have slightly more than 50+ liters in any type of safe emergency flotation volume.
Would the Vudu design be compliant with "10% more flotation volume when flooded than the actual ready to sail displacement"?


Luiz
#149942 - 07/20/08 07:22 PM Re: New Draft rule [Re: RetiredGeek]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote
The only thing I have an issue with is the 30 liter volume, thats about 50% higher than my round bilge design and as I just secured a builder for it, I'd like that to continue.


RG the foam requirement isn't new, its been in every draft set of rules published including Wouter's originals. Could you not add some foam in a bag like the F18s do?

Quote

You might want to amend the 6m black band rule on the mast as it can't be seen with a pocket luff sail.


Proposed alternate wording or rule?

#149943 - 07/21/08 04:01 AM Re: New Draft rule [Re: ]  
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 432
Gato Offline
addict
Gato  Offline
addict

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 432
Finland
It looks good, I wote for it.

Last edited by Gato; 07/21/08 04:04 AM.
#149944 - 07/21/08 06:25 PM Re: New Draft rule [Re: Gato]  
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 255
RetiredGeek Offline
enthusiast
RetiredGeek  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 255
NZ
ooops....sorry...missed a "0" in that...disregard the previous post. (was half asleep late at night)

Billy wasn't intending to have a hatch cover....and it would be difficult to fit as we only have half a deck width to fit it to with the bevelled deck design....why is it necessary to have that in the rule ?

#149945 - 07/21/08 06:30 PM Re: New Draft rule [Re: RetiredGeek]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


From memory the hatch cover was a cut and paste from F16 rule. I'm happy to delete.

#149946 - 07/21/08 07:40 PM Re: New Draft rule [Re: ]  
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 14
billby Offline
stranger
billby  Offline
stranger

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 14
Paihia New Zealand
we may put a inspection port in anyway so no problem with that for the vudu in nz
bill

#149947 - 07/21/08 08:54 PM Re: New Draft rule [Re: billby]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Ncik's post from home building thread.

Quote
With that wording, only a single compartment is required, which doesn't provide the level is safety that I believe is intended.

Preferred wording should state something along the lines of requiring two compartments of atleast 30 litres each, which I believe is the intent.

Something like...

1.5.2 Each hull shall carry atleast two compartments of alteast 30 liters of flotation each. The hull may be divided into two suitable compartments with a watertight bulkhead or a single compartment hull may be fitted with solid closed cell foam, solid blocks of compacted foam granulate or air bags of 30 litres volume each suitable attached to the hull.

A bit wordy but hopefully less ambiguous.

oops, probably wrong location for this.

#149948 - 07/22/08 01:10 AM Re: New Draft rule [Re: ]  
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 951
ncik Offline
old hand
ncik  Offline
old hand

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 951
Brisbane, Queensland, Australi...
Yeah...I think that needs a rewording.

Is the intent also to allow the hull construction foam as part of the positive flotation? My F16 conforms to its requirements with just the hulls foam (no dedicated positive flotation foam). I have no problem with it being counted towards the positive flotation volume.

I do have some concerns about allowing a single air bag in each hull for positive flotation. My intention isn't to complicate the existing rules, but without appropriate securing of multiple air bags, one air bag may be rendered completely useless during a collision.

#149949 - 07/22/08 02:03 AM Re: New Draft rule [Re: RetiredGeek]  
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe

Quote

why is it necessary to have that in the rule ?


So you can inspect the hull on the inside and check for the required flotation.

Wouter


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
#149950 - 07/22/08 02:40 AM Re: New Draft rule [Re: ]  
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe


I'm largely in favour of these rules; but I have comments on the following points

section 1.4.3

I would remove the identifiers "halyard lock" or "shackle" and replace them with something alot more general. Actually, sleeved sails use neither a halyard nor a shackle to secure the sail to the top. Pretty popular now is a ribbon cross that forms a small cup and a single line. The mast top is of significant length (say 200-300 mm) in order to keep the sleeve tight at the top and allow the sail to twist easily around the mast. I can put pics on if people don't understand what is meant here. Interestingly enough this setup would allow an upper black band to be visible again.

Basically I would reword this rule so that no part of the sail may be beyond the upper band with the exception of those parts that function ONLY as a means to secure the sail to the compliant position. Of course any real sailarea will have a double function and be non-compliant.

With sleeved sails that just close the top of the sleeve by stitching we can simply require that the top of the mast or the upper black band is no further away from the top of the main beam then 6.00 mtr, which ever is lowest.

Personally I strongly prefer a max luff length measurement as well, mostly because this rule is alot more difficult to break then a black band rule. Afterall, my unstayed mast will be collapsable and it is a 5 euro and 5 minute job to replace the top section with a slightly longer one after getting a measurement certificate. Replacing the sail (with a stamp and signiture) is alot harder and more expensive. With a max luff length the mast black band distance is also implecitly fixed.


Point 1.5.1 Inspection hatches.

To retired geek etc. Marstrom and the F14 builder fit inspection hatches to their sterns which are always flat panels as it will be pretty hard to align the rudder pintles on a curved panel. So this may be the solution to you guys.


Point 1.10.2 For sleeved sails Area = A + As

Firstly I would write down " For sleeved sails; Total area = A + As" and thus refer directly back to the basic rule which is "Total area may not be greater then 7.0 sq. mtr."

Secondly, we must define A properly. Currently it can be argued that the sleeve area must be included twice as who is to say that the "actual area" of a sleeved sail doesn't include the sleeve already ? Also do we included the area of the sail that is inside the mast track or inside the sleeve ? If not then we must exlcude those from the actual area as well. Remember, when things get competitive we can expect some sea lawer to comb the rules for an advantage. Remember the protest at the F18 worlds two years ago about every one being protested for having the compliant peddles on boards ? We better make sure the rules are already as well worded as possible from the start to avoid troubles later.



I would also include organistional rules, event rules and a definitions section to the F12 class rules and make the boxrule section an individual section. These don't have to be as elaborate the versions with the F18 or F16 rules but I still think we should have them. Again to avoid ourselves difficult discussions later.

A point in case. In rule 1.1.1 we refer to the spirit of the rule but we don't really define what this spirit is. We do a little bit of that in the Prologue but it is wise to consider defining a few well worded goals/spirits that can be used as a checklist. Something like.

The spirit of the F12 rule is to

-1- Limit the overall performance of all F12 craft to such similar level that first-in-wins course racing is fair irrespectibally of the craft used by a particular crew.

-2- Have all crews have acces to any F12 design (given reasonable costs) that is most capable of wining a course race if ever a significant difference between makes is ever encountered.

Etc


I may spot more points later.

Wouter


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
#149951 - 07/22/08 10:30 AM Re: New Draft rule [Re: Wouter]  
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,305
Luiz Offline
veteran
Luiz  Offline
veteran

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,305
Asuncion, Paraguay
Quote


Personally I strongly prefer a max luff length measurement as well, mostly because this rule is alot more difficult to break then a black band rule. Afterall, my unstayed mast will be collapsable and it is a 5 euro and 5 minute job to replace the top section with a slightly longer one after getting a measurement certificate. Replacing the sail (with a stamp and signiture) is alot harder and more expensive. With a max luff length the mast black band distance is also implecitly fixed.



Makes sense to me.


Quote


Marstrom and the F14 builder fit inspection hatches to their sterns which are always flat panels as it will be pretty hard to align the rudder pintles on a curved panel.



I like stern hatches because one can see the entire inside from there, not only the vicinity of the hatch. All Supercats/ARCs have stern hatches. I used them in my floats for the same reason - and because they are usefull for construction in two halves.

[Linked Image]

Quote


Remember, when things get competitive we can expect some sea lawer to comb the rules for an advantage... We better make sure the rules are already as well worded as possible from the start to avoid troubles later.

I would also include organistional rules, event rules and a definitions section to the F12 class rules and make the boxrule section an individual section. These don't have to be as elaborate the versions with the F18 or F16 rules but I still think we should have them. Again to avoid ourselves difficult discussions later.



Although I still dream of a one design class, it seems that we have a mini A class in our hands. We need not re-invent the wheel: just adapt the A-Class rules to the F12.


Quote


The spirit of the F12 rule is to

-1- Limit the overall performance of all F12 craft to such similar level that first-in-wins course racing is fair irrespectibally of the craft used by a particular crew.

-2- Have all crews have acces to any F12 design (given reasonable costs) that is most capable of wining a course race if ever a significant difference between makes is ever encountered.

Etc


The right wording is of utmost importance here. This point deserves our atention.

Attached Files

Luiz
#149952 - 07/23/08 01:37 AM Re: New Draft rule [Re: Luiz]  
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 432
Gato Offline
addict
Gato  Offline
addict

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 432
Finland
I think that it's very important to get the basic rules on paper NOW-NOW.
There is already too much my design have that and that, and it will become worse with more designers joining the club.
Can we not agree on the draft Scarecrow made, and the rest we let until the the control is handed over to a specific group?

#149953 - 07/23/08 02:42 AM Re: New Draft rule [Re: Gato]  
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe

Quote

Can we not agree on the draft Scarecrow made, and the rest we let until the the control is handed over to a specific group?


I agree with your first point but lets give it a good work over here and now. When the little loopholes and inconsistances are to be worked out by a group of owners then we'll be in for a huge amount of discussions and arguing. Right now the discussion group is still small and sufficiently focussed.

Wouter


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
#149954 - 07/23/08 03:28 AM Re: New Draft rule [Re: Luiz]  
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Quote

... just adapt the A-Class rules to the F12. ...



The A-class has actually one of the worst rulesets in the catamaran scene from a class stability and low-participation-cost perspective. Two pitfalls we really want to avoid in the F12 class.

It has only somewhat stabilized in the last 10 years because after 30-40 years of repeative development and significant changes to the boat the concept has found a balance that is hard to improve upon. Do we really want to see the F12 take 3 to 4 decades to find its place ?

Wouter

Last edited by Wouter; 07/23/08 03:29 AM.

Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
#149955 - 07/23/08 10:51 AM Re: New Draft rule [Re: Wouter]  
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,305
Luiz Offline
veteran
Luiz  Offline
veteran

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,305
Asuncion, Paraguay
Quote
Quote

... just adapt the A-Class rules to the F12. ...


The A-class has actually one of the worst rulesets in the catamaran scene from a class stability and low-participation-cost perspective. Two pitfalls we really want to avoid in the F12 class.

It has only somewhat stabilized in the last 10 years because after 30-40 years of repeative development and significant changes to the boat the concept has found a balance that is hard to improve upon. Do we really want to see the F12 take 3 to 4 decades to find its place ?



No problem, let's find the most appropriate and easily adjustable rules available. It is easier to improve existing rules than to start from scratch. Then we can add the best parts to Scarecrows text.

From the moment the first draft became available, it already was THE F12 rule, even if under discussion. Remember that after the text is agreed on, it will necessarily remain provisory until the by-laws or statutes are made official.


Luiz
#149956 - 07/24/08 10:04 AM Re: New Draft rule [Re: Luiz]  
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,305
Luiz Offline
veteran
Luiz  Offline
veteran

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,305
Asuncion, Paraguay
Quote
...let's find the most appropriate and easily adjustable rules available.


I suggest the reading of the following rules before deciding if one of them can be used as first draft or if we should improve the existing F12 rules.

A Class: http://home.planet.nl/~dwars000/id20.htm

Wave: http://www.catsailor.com/waves/wave_const.html

F16: http://www.geocities.com/f16hpclass/F16HP_class_rules.html

F18: .pdf]http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/F18_2007_Class_Rules-[5051].pdf

Tornado: .pdf]http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/2...0208-[5103].pdf

Open 60: .pdf]http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/60MT_2004_CR-[859].pdf


Luiz
#149957 - 07/26/08 04:00 AM Re: New Draft rule [Re: Luiz]  
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,382
Jalani Offline
veteran
Jalani  Offline
veteran

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,382
Essex, UK


John Alani
___________
Stealth F16s GBR527 and GBR538
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  Damon Linkous 

Search

Who's Online Now
1 registered members (reVintage), 17 guests, and 70 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
NilsonPardal, corrinezhan, pussycatcatman, Shotsailor, PointDume
7725 Registered Users
Top Posters(30 Days)
Jake 6
Timbo 3
P.M. 2
Forum Statistics
Forums27
Topics22,268
Posts266,190
Members7,725
Most Online554
May 12th, 2017
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.011s Queries: 17 (0.003s) Memory: 0.9181 MB (Peak: 1.1740 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-12-14 13:16:37 UTC