Announcements
New Discussions
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
proposed 20 class rule options #3809
11/13/01 03:43 PM
11/13/01 03:43 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
sail6000 Offline OP
old hand
sail6000  Offline OP
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
-Equal Performance 20 Class EP20-C
<br>
<br>-Goal –
<br>-To promote equal Formula type catamaran racing in respect with F-16 HT and F-18 class racing in N A –including all the numerous existing 20 ft 8.5 ft beam cat designs in their various design configurations
<br>-and also to work with and include existing F-20 designs and to promote and encourage new designs, participation in the class and general growth of the sport.
<br>
<br>1--problem –We have numerous existing 20 ft active racing catamarans, some in several versions, some with variations of sail area and weight from advertised specifications.
<br> Also we have existing 20 Formula designs, further we would like to encourage and promote new developments in design, sail plans, building technique, and boat performance.
<br>
<br>-Solution =Draft a more inclusive flexible set of class rules.
<br>
<br>
<br>-2—Problem –variations of sail area and weight of listed existing designs.
<br>
<br>-Solution = Allow a limited graduated scale within the proposed class rules of sail area to boat weight ratios.
<br>
<br>-Discussion –We can set a max. rating target in ISAF and–Texel beyond the existing F-20 rating, -possibly a full point faster, this will allow existing boats to sail as they are and upgrade slightly themselves if desired, allow proportional equal performance upgrades in sail area or reduced weight to existing designs, -Existing F-20 s could be upgraded for N A . with larger chutes, or built with lighter components ,-carbon mast etc., New designs evolving have the option of lighter total weight ,- again equalizing all designs within the weight to sail area scale outline.
<br>
<br> Further –We should rely on proven existing ratings calc and design principles in establishing the weight to sail area scale ratios setting proportional max. main jib and spin area limitations. -A suggested weight range may graduate with proportionally reduced sail area from 420 to 320 lbs.
<br>-{note ; working on sail area to weight ratios } . researching existing designs for comparison .
<br>
<br>-Problems –As listed previously this type of design rule historically leads to 3 main undesirable class characteristics evolving over time .
<br> 1-extreme design characteristics {rulebeater designs} -2- cost and expense of these designs –
<br> 3 –fragile lightweight designs.
<br>
<br>-1-Solution –Given existing cat design in respect to other established 16 and 18 Formula Classes setting a max 20 ft Length and 8.5 beam, with sail area and weight being the other main factors in design performance, If we are going to guide or direct future catamaran design by the formation of class racing rules then lets direct them toward lighter faster safer designs which would occur with lighter platforms with less sail area on them, being easier to control particularly in heavy weather and large sea conditions with less strain and wear on stay and beam connections, also being easier to right in event of a capsize.
<br>
<br>-Solution 2—cost –presently per example of numerous excellent A Class and other lightweight durable designs and in larger scale the Boyer Taipan 5.7 for one, with it’s 18.75 ft length has a weight of 275 lbs and is very reasonably and competitively priced. The 320 lower end proposed target weight range for the 20 class would not be unrealistic consistent with cost and strength.
<br>
<br>-Solution 3—fragile or unseaworthy designs --- The 20 Class will often be used in ocean distance races, any cat produced or built should be capable of completing a Worrell 1000 race.
<br>-Min scantling requirements –{min specified strengths of components} may be drafted,
<br>-The class may also reserve the right to require min testing certification per manufacturer.
<br>
<br>-
<br> Problem –Crew weight –
<br>-Solution –The F-16 and 18 classes will attract proportionally sized crews with their smaller more manageable chute sizes. Most racing 20s have experienced larger crew being very competitive on the larger more powerful cats and are used to class min weights we now all sail under, The class may wish to set a min 325 per most existing class rules and allow those below to carry weight to meet min. We all have the option of crew and total weight and can be responsible to maintain our own ideal optimum.
<br>
<br>
<br>-There are numerous other class rules to discuss and define, -these main proposed concepts outlined would form the basis of the new 20 class.
<br>
<br> Please post your constructive optional solutions, or expanded thoughts on existing rules outline concepts --thanks
<br> Carl Roberts
<br><br><br>

--Advertisement--
Re: proposed 20 class rule options [Re: sail6000] #3810
11/14/01 01:00 PM
11/14/01 01:00 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
sail6000 Offline OP
old hand
sail6000  Offline OP
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
Wanted to clearify the proposed concept -
<br> basically setting a higher rated max. design as the model adding a sail area to boat weight ratio allowing all designs to race equally and new lightweight designs to evolve , and eliminating crew weight factors .
<br>--We do not have to limit our class to existing thinking on Formula .
<br> Some would argue that this type of more open rule will create too large a performance range in light {favoring existing designs with larger sailplans }-to high wind conditions -{theoretically favoring new lighter designs with porportionally less sail area . -I-would counter by stating too ridgid overly specified strict rules will simply return you eventually to one type of design winning . a-one design class.
<br>
<br>-thought I would repost this to help clearify the concept-
<br>
<br>-The Equal Performance class rules option proposed ALL designs being rated higher than existing -meaning ALL existing designs may be modified or upgraded in performance levels equally {inc .the i-20 }-slightly larger chute ,and also to include existing N-6/0 S with larger chutes ,---EVERYONE MODIFIES AND UPGRADES if desired.
<br>--Some exs. designs will adopt to chutes better than others , there are always coresponding design modifications that are required to any design. -
<br>
<br>--{looking for exact specs on those E-Coast N 6/0s -chute -pole jib and main sizes ,-with exs.{heavier } mast weight }-
<br>--
<br>
<br>--Setting a higher max target rating in ISAF -Texel -allows us to use and adopt existing accepted means of design calc. and measurement and also gives a max. rating -{again higher than exs. }---we should list all specs in Impl and metric ,--we can model or propose modifications to each exs.cat design to this max.rating inc. exs F-20 designs and allow new H T lighter 20 designs with proportionally smaller more efficient sail plans {equal performance } to evolve -
<br>
<br>-note -The last thing any of us would want to occur in this new 20 class is 16 and 18 ft designs sailing by us at higher speeds.-Several top sailors who have sailed the new 18s are already claiming that they are faster in certain conditions .
<br>
<br>-Crew weight -always contriversial ,--{remember fat boy allowances }--In establishing the class we need it as inclusive and simple as possible ,--we can add complex crew weight factors into class rules if they are deemed necessary in the future based on race results . -They are not required to get this going and eliminate pages of rules specification and elaborate measurement verification with various jib spin and weights required dependant on who your crew is and what your crew weight might be that particular regatta or distance race weekend .-
<br>-As Steve mentioned the KISS principle should be applied when possible -
<br>The proposed design formula EP20-C would only require one boat weight and measurement check, a certificate and sail sticker could be issued ,builders could publish specs and recieve a class sail stricker or emblem,
<br>
<br>-Please take a look at this concept proposed .
<br>-
<br>Please excuse my poor eyesight combined with typos ,
<br>-Thanks
<br>Carl
<br>
<br>-<br><br>

Attached Files
3857- (152 downloads)
Re: proposed 20 class rule options [Re: sail6000] #3811
11/15/01 08:57 AM
11/15/01 08:57 AM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
sail6000 Offline OP
old hand
sail6000  Offline OP
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
-Given the set of existing circumstances and numerous existing 20 active racing designs believe this sail area to weight rule is the best solution to include and equalize the av performance of them and allow new lightweight designs to evolve.
<br>-It will require all designs to modify and upgrade to slightly larger sailplans as the scale is applied to existing designs.
<br>
<br>Proposed preliminary sail area to boat weight ratio scale for the 20 class -
<br>
<br>max, Weight -420 --main 220 --jib --60 --spin 330 sq ft
<br>
<br>-mid range -Weight 370 --main 200 --jib 55 --spin 300
<br>
<br>-min Weight 320 --main 180 jib 50 --spin 270
<br>
<br>-note; shown are max,-mid and min. --all would be calculated based on individual boat weight and fall within this range .
<br>
<br>-Again -these are preliminary proposed numbers , and expect some revision before finalizing them ,but wanted to demonstrate how easily this can be achieved rather than explaining in the abstract as previously .
<br>
<br>-As you can see we are proposing an increase of sail area of the existing N-6/0 for example at max 420 lbs. from exs. 264 to 280 max , main and jib ,--including mast area .
<br>-Max. spin area would be 330 sq ft . with a percentage allowance in increased spin area for alum , and heavier masts with added stays or the heavier comptip of several existing designs wishing to keep them rather than modify .
<br>
<br>-Stay hound tang mast locations and max height can be standardized along with max spin pole L .
<br>
<br>-All designs would also be allowed to shift sail area from main to jib in total equal sq ft per weight catagory,allowing some flexability in design . In the mid range weight the 8.5 beam version Tornado at 370 +or - could use its existing sailplan main and 75 sq ft jib with larger allowed spin if desired.
<br>-At the min weight end we are encouraging approx 100 lb lighter designs than existing F-20s with slightly smaller main and jib with equal spin area in respect to current boats.
<br>
<br>-Once this difficult aspect of the rules is discussed revised and finalized keeping in mind the goal of equal fair sailing , the other rules can be simplified .
<br>--Please review specs as applied to your particular cat and please post with constructive comment .
<br> Thanks
<br> Carl<br><br>

Re: proposed 20 class rule options [Re: sail6000] #3812
11/15/01 11:49 AM
11/15/01 11:49 AM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
sail6000 Offline OP
old hand
sail6000  Offline OP
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
Here is the prop. Weight to Sail Area rule scale applied to the various designs listed .-Keep in mind that mainsail area from max may be transfered to the jib area maintaining the total equally to allow design variation, and that a spin area increase { 2 to 6 % }will be added to heavier masted existing designs.
<br>-Note : max spin area may not always prove fastest , we may find a certain aspect ratio spin performs best through a range of conditions given the same hoist height on the mast and spin pole length.
<br>
<br>-note; varied Weight slightly for example purposes ,-as we know mfg. advertised W will vary , each will be weighed.
<br>
<br>--N-6/0 --W=420 - - M-Sail 220 - - Jib 60 -- - Spin max=330 + % factor of mast -applied based on mast weight,all designs
<br>
<br>-Tornado sp -8,5 Beam --W-370 -MS =200- Jib 55 - - Spin 300
<br>
<br>-Inter 20 -W=390 - - MS =208 - - Jib 57 - - Spin max,-312
<br>
<br>-H-Fox -W-415 + MS =218 -Jib 59.5 - Spin max -327
<br>-plus % for heavier mast if used
<br>
<br>-Mystere W=400 - - MS =212 - Jib -58 - - Spin max=318
<br>
<br>-H-20 -W=420 - - MS 220 - Jib 60 - - Spin max 330
<br> plus % for heavier mast if used.
<br>
<br>-P-19 -W=385 - MS 206 - Jib-56.5 - - Spin max. 309
<br>
<br>-Light -W=320 -MS -180 - Jib -50 - - Spin max. 270
<br><br><br>

Attached Files
3891- (165 downloads)
Re: proposed 20 class rule options [Re: sail6000] #3813
11/15/01 01:22 PM
11/15/01 01:22 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 180
Chelmsford, MA
Barry Offline
member
Barry  Offline
member

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 180
Chelmsford, MA
I think the open rules are not the way to go. The original F20 class (box type rule) is dead. The Ventilo 20 was designed under this rule and the boat was so much faster than the rest of the boats it killed the class. The current iF20 rules seem to be fairly equal when you look at the results. If we put the onus on the iF20 rules it would take away the burden of any rules we came up with. Meaning, it would be an easier sell by using existing rules and just administering them here. Our focus should be to get started in the right direction and slowly build the class. Trying to convert all of the existing 20’ boats is looking backwards and not forward. How many boats other then Foxes and I20 are competing in the if20? None that I saw. Boats are being designed now to sail in the iF20. There are 3 boats in North American now. The Mystere 2000 is being made to sail under iF20. A Ventilo iF20 can be imported easily. If the class takes off we may see others get into the mix like Supercat.<br><br>

Attached Files
3893- (153 downloads)
Re: proposed 20 class rule options [Re: Barry] #3814
11/15/01 02:48 PM
11/15/01 02:48 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
sail6000 Offline OP
old hand
sail6000  Offline OP
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
Hi Barry
<br>
<br>-The largest criticism of F Class is extreme weight !!
<br>
<br> Believe we can keep many of the existing rules outlined basically the same , the weight -sail area proposal adds a way to update the class and include existing designs .
<br>
<br>-Seems your descibing all the things wrong with existing Formula in your post ,-
<br> We do not have to start slow and build an entirely new F specific class of only 420 pound 193 mainsail area inc mast cats . WHY ,-because Europe did , or it is seemingly easier , an easier sell .
<br>-We do need ISAF or Texel as a common rating system , but we do not have to follow the errors you have pointed out in existing F rules.
<br>-Including potentially a thousand more 20 ft. racing cats existing around the country is not looking back ,-It is simply including them in the class , evan the East Coast N -6/0 S with large chutes will fit in , difficult to understand why this would not be welcomed by any avid racer .
<br> Allowing only 420 pound cats is looking back and ignoring the many existing lightweight catamarans available , not to mention the numerous existing racing 20 ft cats , and the inevetable lighterweight future with continueously improving building techniques and materials available once thought of as exotic or expensive and now the norm .
<br>
<br>-We have numerous excellent builders {look at the A s }including the builders you mentioned very capable of producing excellent high quality lightweight hi performance catamarans , they can easily convert these to proposed rules and hopefully build them 50 or 70 lbs lighter .
<br>
<br>-The Tornado has survived because of it's excellent original design and mainly due to the fact that it has been allowed to be modified and built LIGHTER with improved quality over the years .
<br>-Existing F-Classes will have to face this eventually , as lighter more high performance cats speed past them .-They will eventually ,-just as the Tornado has ,have to allow modification and lighter weight , the only way to accomplish this without making the existing fleet obsolete is a similar sail area to weight rule as described.-We are simply acknowledging this up front with potential class members .
<br>
<br>-I would like to see Supercat and many other excellent boat builders produce a 20 , If they will build one to the min. weight allowed in the class I will order mine NOW !!
<br>
<br> aLL THE BEST -
<br> Carl<br><br>

Attached Files
3895- (158 downloads)

Moderated by  Damon Linkous 

Search

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 253 guests, and 85 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Darryl, zorro, CraigJ, PaulEddo2, AUS180
8150 Registered Users
Top Posters(30 Days)
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics22,404
Posts267,055
Members8,150
Most Online2,167
Dec 19th, 2022
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1