Well, as we sail a Taipan 4.9 I carefully read the rules and the F16HP pages and here are a few thoughts/questions that came to my mind:
<br>
<br>1. In the section about the Taipan 4.9 it says that the Taipan does not need any modifications to comply to the rules.
<br>In the rules it says that the rated sail area of the jib may only be 3.1 sqm. Currently, the rated area of the 4.9 jib is 3.8 sqm, so I would have to reduce the size of the jib by 25% (4.1 -> 3.3 sqm). Apart from having to buy a new jib (I don't think recutting is possible) I doubt the current sheeting system will still fit. If we also want to sail outside F16HP, we would have to leave the old sheeting system on the boat.
<br>
<br>2. When the proposed weight compensation system comes into effect, we would have to sail without jib (because we are below 120 kg). That means, we sail with the same configuration as a Uni, except we have an extra person on board. Does that seem fair?
<br>
<br>3. The sloop configuration has a complicated weight compensation system to rule out differences in weight. The uni has nothing like that. Is that fair? Can anyone explain the rationale behind that?
<br>
<br>4. I always thought, F16HP was there so unis and sloops could sail together in a race. From the rating calculations I now doubt that this is possible/intended. I couldn't find anything in the rules re. this. Can somebody enlighten me?
<br>
<br>5. We would have to buy a new genaker (17.5 sqm).
<br>
<br>Currently I have the impression that the F16HP group focuses too much on challenging and outperforming larger boats ("David against Goliath") instead of leaving them alone and concentrating on forming rules which make it possible for the different setups to fairly sail together (sloops, unis etc.) with minor modifications.
<br>
<br>Also, I think we should not seek for weight compensation for crews above 145 kg (or so). The platforms are too small for two adults and a spinnaker, people should move on to F18 at that size/weight. We try to compensate over a wider range than F18, this will not serve the crews at the ends of the limits.
<br>
<br>Just my thoughts,
<br>Gebhard.<br><br>

Gebhard-
<br>Good thoughts! Here's my comments, opinions and ideas and I hope others will join in as well-
<br>
<br>G- 1. In the section about the Taipan 4.9 it says that the Taipan does not need any modifications to comply to the rules.
<br>In the rules it says that the rated sail area of the jib may only be 3.1 sqm. Currently, the rated area of the 4.9 jib is 3.8 sqm, so I would have to reduce the size of the jib by 25% (4.1 -> 3.3 sqm). Apart from having to buy a new jib (I don't think recutting is possible) I doubt the current sheeting system will still fit. If we also want to sail outside F16HP, we would have to leave the old sheeting system on the boat.
<br>K- 1.- Well, this is a "Wouter question", since he's been in charge of this aspect. However I remind you the "rated" area and the actual area of the main and jib ( I think?) are not necessarily the same. So, it may be true that the T 4.9 needs no changes AND the actual area and "rated" area are different. Remember also the weight compensation issue does not "take effect" for some period of time initially.
<br>IMO we need some "experimenting" w/ actual boats and jib areas/spi areas to see if all these mathematical formulas based on Texel rule "assumptions" are valid. I'm personally more interested in whether the boats ARE nearly equal on the water rather than just on paper (but this is just my opinion).
<br>This may take some "tweaking" between boats (like NASCAR car racing in the US where the "National Authority" yearly reviews the racing and changes parameters to try to keep the various car makes roughly equivalent- And it works w/ everyone happy- racers, makers, fans!).
<br>
<br>G- 2. When the proposed weight compensation system comes into effect, we would have to sail without jib (because we are below 120 kg). That means, we sail with the same configuration as a Uni, except we have an extra person on board. Does that seem fair?
<br>K- 2. Not necessarily, but in Michigan had there been 2 people on my uni with a spi probably would have done better! But seriously, in most conditions it would not be "fair"- So (MO)- you could choose to sail "uni" w/ 2 or just add weight to get to 120 kg. But don't think a uni config. w/ spi/reacher and 2 people is "slow"- There are several boats designed this way (M20 for example!).
<br>
<br>G- 3. The sloop configuration has a complicated weight compensation system to rule out differences in weight. The uni has nothing like that. Is that fair? Can anyone explain the rationale behind that?
<br>K- 3. The wt. compensation system is meant to be fairly uncomplicated, at least that's my understanding (and intent). I think it NEEDS to be fairly simple and straightforward (ala the F18). As for the uni having NO wt. comp.- That's true but I'm not sure how to do this and still retain easy "switchability" between sloop and uni. I'm sure you are aware the Taipan's race both ways and many uni ONLY Taipan sailors compensate w/ different rigs (mainly sail/batten changes) to accomodate their personal weight. You could certainly allow "racks" of different widths to keep the "light" people competitive upwind w/ the "heavies" but then a larger spi for the "heavies" downwind??
<br>What are your thoughts? The "A" cats have no provisions for weight comp. but the top ten guys at regattas are often ~30 kg different.
<br>
<br>G- 4. I always thought, F16HP was there so unis and sloops could sail together in a race. From the rating calculations I now doubt that this is possible/intended. I couldn't find anything in the rules re. this. Can somebody enlighten me?
<br>K- 4. That is ONE of the goals of F16 HP. This may take some "tweaking" also once people actually start doing it. Not sure which configuration will be "best" with the current setup. Here in the US currently the sloops have to give me time when I race uni but I have not had enough opportunites to race them "head to head" (especially w/ spinnakers) to know how this will work out. What is it in the ratings calculations that leads you to believe this will not be possible?
<br>
<br>G- 5. We would have to buy a new genaker (17.5 sqm).
<br>K- 5. You could buy a new gennaker (You have the 21 sqm??) or have the old one recut (most of the US group are going w/ the smaller gennakers anyway and if this rule "passes" and becomes popular then you'll likely see improvements in gennakers, handling systems, etc. and some consistency in sail sizes/configurations).
<br>
<br>G- Currently I have the impression that the F16HP group focuses too much on challenging and outperforming larger boats ("David against Goliath") instead of leaving them alone and concentrating on forming rules which make it possible for the different setups to fairly sail together (sloops, unis etc.) with minor modifications.
<br>K- I'm sorry you got that impression and perhaps some of "us" have "strayed slightly" from the original intent which was as you describe- A "formula" class to allow different boat makes (both uni and sloop) to race relatively fairly on an equal handicap (boat-for-boat) basis.
<br>Perhaps your note will remind all of us this is the true primary goal of this group.
<br>
<br>G- Also, I think we should not seek for weight compensation for crews above 145 kg (or so). The platforms are too small for two adults and a spinnaker, people should move on to F18 at that size/weight. We try to compensate over a wider range than F18, this will not serve the crews at the ends of the limits.
<br>K- You may have a good point here Gebhard, but another option would be to "allow" it and see what happens rather than not make any provision for it (you definitely would not see it then). It may well turn out that those "heavy" crews do not exist and/or opt for bigger boats themselves BUT I like the option personally because I almost always have to race myself but on the rare chances I can race with one of my sons or wife I don't want to have to get another boat. Just my opinion.
<br>
<br>Kirt<br><br>Kirt Simmons
<br>Taipan #159, "A" cat US 48

>>I hope others will join in as well-
<br>
<br>here I am.
<br>
<br>G- 1. In the section about the Taipan 4.9 it says that the Taipan does not need any modifications to comply to the rules. still fit. If we also want to sail outside F16HP, we would have to leave the old sheeting system on the boat.
<br>
<br>You quote indeed a F16 HP rule, however the grandfathered rule applies to the Taipan 4.9 as is layed down in the current T4.9 class rules. This rule states :
<br>
<br>The maximum allowed jib area for a particular design is that area
<br>that satisfies the following two conditions :
<br>
<br> -1- 2,50 sq. mtr. =< rated jib area =< 4,25 sq. mtr
<br>
<br> -2- The resulting rating number must be equal to or "slower"
<br> than the rating number of the F18 class when using
<br> the F16 HP officially designated handicap calculation system
<br> which is the Texel handicap system.
<br>
<br>The via Texel calculated rating number may therefor not be lower than 103.
<br>
<br>Obviously the standard Taipan 4.9 with a (17,5 sq.mtr.) genaker is rated at 103 under the Texel system. Therefor the standard Taipan is allowed to use it's bigger jib.
<br>
<br>>>>K- 1.- Well, this is a "Wouter question", since he's been in charge of this aspect. However I remind you the "rated" area and the actual area of the main and jib ( I think?) are not necessarily the same. So, it may be true that the T 4.9 needs no changes AND the actual area and "rated" area are different.
<br>
<br>(wouter) Indeed Kirt, Taipan main falls just inside the mainsail rule so The 1-up T4.9 is even a pure F16HP by definition.
<br>
<br>Kirt is right in underlining that rated sail area is not the same as actual sail area. The first is derived from the last using the luff length of the sail. In effect the combination of a luff length and sail area is regulated and not just sailarea.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Remember also the weight compensation issue does not "take effect" for some period of time initially.
<br>
<br>(wouter) And is still under construction (tweaking) so it is not final in its presented form. The group has agreed to fix this after say a year or 2 years in which we can gether experiences and data which we will as input when choosing the final values.
<br>
<br>For now, we'll all race in one setup and that will be the Standard T4.9 with 17.5 sq. mtr. genaker setup for Taipan owners.
<br>
<br>
<br>G- 2. When the proposed weight compensation system comes into effect, we would have to sail without jib (because we are below 120 kg). That means, we sail with the same configuration as a Uni, except we have an extra person on board. Does that seem fair?
<br>
<br>K- 2. Not necessarily, but in Michigan had there been 2 people on my uni with a spi probably would have done better! But seriously, in most conditions it would not be "fair"- So (MO)- you could choose to sail "uni" w/ 2 or just add weight to get to 120 kg. But don't think a uni config. w/ spi/reacher and 2 people is "slow"- There are several boats designed this way (M20 for example!).
<br>
<br>(wouter) I'm faced with a dilemma here, Coz another 155 kg's crew would claim that it isn't fair when you race with a jib when you already have 40 kg's weight advantage ! Neverthe less the same answer applies as the one given above. This element of the weight equalization system is not final as the whole WE system is. More data is necessary and I expect that a crew of 120 kg's will not really miss the jib downwind when you too fly the genaker as the other crews so.
<br>
<br>I say, lets try this and gether data. When it can be shown that this setup is unfair than we'll adjust the Weight Equalization system.
<br>
<br>Kirt also named a good point about adding weight. I know that the rules name crew weight but It was voted to allow all means of weight equalization that the crew themselfs choose. So If you want to fly a bigger jib than you are allowed to do that by adding weight till you make the same overall weight as at which the platform and crew of the big jib group would be.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>G- 3. The sloop configuration has a complicated weight compensation system to rule out differences in weight. The uni has nothing like that. Is that fair? Can anyone explain the rationale behind that?
<br>
<br>K- 3. The wt. compensation system is meant to be fairly uncomplicated, at least that's my understanding (and intent). I think it NEEDS to be fairly simple and straightforward (ala the F18). As for the uni having NO wt. comp.- That's true but I'm not sure how to do this and still retain easy "switchability" between sloop and uni. I'm sure you are aware the Taipan's race both ways and many uni ONLY Taipan sailors compensate w/ different rigs (mainly sail/batten changes) to accomodate their personal weight. You could certainly allow "racks" of different widths to keep the "light" people competitive upwind w/ the "heavies" but then a larger spi for the "heavies" downwind??
<br>What are your thoughts? The "A" cats have no provisions for weight comp. but the top ten guys at regattas are often ~30 kg different.
<br>
<br>
<br>(wouter) I say our system is less complicated than the iF20 and F18 systems. Only system that would be simplier is no system at all and how fair is that ? Rack (wings) are already allowed and regulated and after last week I'm even more convinced that solo racing outcomes is even more dependend on sailor ability than crew sailing especially with the genakers.
<br>
<br>And the F16hp 1-up is heavily influenced by the A-cat and T4.9 cat rigged setups. Neither of them uses a equalisation system and both classes seem to be able to keep a wide range of sailor competitive using sailshape and different battens. This point can not be used in the 2-up setups for it has been shown that this is not the case in 2-up sailing probably because two pair of hands and high righting moments make nullify any self regulating system that these two solo classes implicitly harbour.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>>G- 4. I always thought, F16HP was there so unis and sloops could sail together in a race. From the rating calculations I now doubt that this is possible/intended. I couldn't find anything in the rules re. this. Can somebody enlighten me?
<br>
<br>>>K- 4. That is ONE of the goals of F16 HP. This may take some "tweaking" also once people actually start doing it. Not sure which configuration will be "best" with the current setup. Here in the US currently the sloops have to give me time when I race uni but I have not had enough opportunites to race them "head to head" (especially w/ spinnakers) to know how this will work out. What is it in the ratings calculations that leads you to believe this will not be possible?
<br>
<br>
<br>(wouter) I side with Kirts answer.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>G- 5. We would have to buy a new genaker (17.5 sqm).
<br>K- 5. You could buy a new gennaker (You have the 21 sqm??) or have the old one recut (most of the US group are going w/ the smaller gennakers anyway and if this rule "passes" and becomes popular then you'll likely see improvements in gennakers, handling systems, etc. and some consistency in sail sizes/configurations).
<br>
<br>(wouter) You did have both genakers sizes did you not ? Once again I side with Kirt on this one.
<br>
<br>>>G- Currently I have the impression that the F16HP group focuses too much on challenging and outperforming larger boats ("David against Goliath") instead of leaving them alone and concentrating on forming rules which make it possible for the different setups to fairly sail together (sloops, unis etc.) with minor modifications.
<br>
<br>K- I'm sorry you got that impression and perhaps some of "us" have "strayed slightly" from the original intent which was as you describe- A "formula" class to allow different boat makes (both uni and sloop) to race relatively fairly on an equal handicap (boat-for-boat) basis.
<br>Perhaps your note will remind all of us this is the true primary goal of this group.
<br>
<br>(wouter) Without day dreaming the whole F16HP initiative would never have existed. And the Equal the F18 (which is a f16HP goal) is in basis "dreaming of outperforming a larger boat" I feel the rule framework is how ever still firmly based on the Formula principles and the goals that we have set ourselfs. This despite a day dream now and then.
<br>
<br>Still, a wake up call may be wise.
<br>
<br>
<br>>> G- Also, I think we should not seek for weight compensation for crews above 145 kg (or so). The platforms are too small for two adults and a spinnaker, people should move on to F18 at that size/weight. We try to compensate over a wider range than F18, this will not serve the crews at the ends of the limits.
<br>K- You may have a good point here Gebhard, but another option would be to "allow" it and see what happens rather than not make any provision for it (you definitely would not see it then). It may well turn out that those "heavy" crews do not exist and/or opt for bigger boats themselves BUT I like the option personally because I almost always have to race myself but on the rare chances I can race with one of my sons or wife I don't want to have to get another boat. Just my opinion.
<br>
<br>
<br>(wouter) I agree with Kirt here. Personally I can assure you that many skiffs have far less room onboard than cats. I am 1,85 mtr. and 80 kg's and I sailed my P16 with my crew of 1.95 mtr. and 81 kg's and I have not found the P16 trampoline size to be lacking. I agree that a genaker bag takes up some space but many will use a snuffer system. Personally I would design a F16 HP with a 9 mtr. height mast and a 8 mtr. luff for crews of my weights. Thus increasing the vertical space under the boom to 0.9 mtr. and thus design in more than enough space for lighning fast tacks or gybes. Much better than crawling under the boom. The rather small sailarea won't make this option overpowered.
<br>
<br>I feel that solutions will be thought up when this class picks up momentum; the 16,5 ft length is not a fundamental limitation in my opinion. A designer could opt for the beam forward design alike the Inter 18.
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br>
<br><br><br>