I'm on the sidelines I know but really my impression is that you guys are running before you can walk; just like some have indicate in other posts.You better forget that championship and pro tour for now, begin small and expand in a controlled way.
<br>
<br>Work first at smooting out small issues with respect to having a general consensusof what the class should be.
<br>
<br>In the beginning the F-class will haevily depend on the existing One-design classes, so allow for this. You can request a Hobie sailor to add a genaker to his boat (he can take this off very easily for On-design races) but things like making boats smaller or wider is not really an option even though it can be done.
<br>
<br>Now I also think that Group Carl and Group iF20 are not in really conflict. You can have both. Sorry but I would like to give and example with the F16 HP class. This class is made up of two fleets. The F16 HP class and OPEN F16 HP class. The first is the full compliant fleet of pure formula's, the second is the class of all designs that have a Texel rating equal to the F18 (and also the F16 HP). This last group already encloses F18, F16 HP, A-cat and possibly 18 sq's.
<br>
<br>These boats race eachother in handicap regatta's and fun races (anyway) and they are only excluded from pure formula championship races. In NL all races will be OPEN F16 HP races (aother name Equal performance class 18 ft.) anyway and to finish list will be made up.
<br>
<br>Ergo Carls idea and iF20 can be expand on achtother without creating a conflict. IS texel rating perfect ? No but I also don't think that this system creates offset larger than 1 or 2 %. With fleets coming in a span of 20 % of the racetime these 1 or 2 % are neglectable anyway.
<br>
<br>This way the F16 HP has formed her own pure formula class + started up the middle equal performance class in the list of 3 classes (Others EPclass iF20 and EPclass H16)
<br>
<br>How can this be implemented, Take the EU IF20 rules and framework calculate the iF20 Texel or ISAF rating and rule that OPEN F20 designs must rate equal to this or slower. Also work a few simple rules to avoid excesses like 14 ft. platform with a N6.0 rig for a measurement system will not be able to rate this fairly because of the underlying assumptions.
<br>
<br>And presto ! Both camps are happy. US I-20 can downsise it's jib or leave it off and be OPEN class F20 or downsize it's main and be pure iF20. Problem US I-20 settled.
<br>
<br>About organising regattas etc. Forget it for now, start first at making contact with the individual 20 ft. one-design classes and maybe run a few test regatta's at regulary D-PN regatta's that allready exist. I'm sure this will convince sailors of teh formula merit. Good N6.0 spi sailors will beat less good I-20 sailors even without expensive modifications. Than create consensus from this and build the class from this.
<br>
<br>Personally, when I look at the specs of the selected boats and the estiamted Texel ratings (I-20, N6.0 NA spi, P19 MX spi, H20 spi, Intl tornado, Mystere 6.0 XL) I see that all ratings are inside a handicap span of about 3 to 4 %. (95 to 98 while iF20 =96) These difference are very accptable and can be neglected. 2 % offset to iF20 is only just over 1 minute in a race of 1 hour or only 1/10 of the expected finishing timespan of teh race anyway. Maybe 1 or 2 places may switch but 90% of the finishing order will be left unaltered and will reflect the capabilities of the crews sailing very accurately.
<br>
<br>Don't trip over this small inequality of only 1 or 2 %; it is not big enough to warrant that at all !
<br>
<br>I would say, Take the iF20 rules or really design a new formula from bottom up. Mind you the US I-20 will also not fit into that new rule !!! I mean, it is really a iF20 with 5 % more mainsail, in effect making it a iF20 too !
<br>
<br>About a new class, good luck and good bye, Only the really talented organisers can that of the ground and you'll have to see if the current US F20 has people like this that are committed to baby sit it for the next 4 years. Personally I say, to much to difficult and a to limited potential of succes. Remember that Neither F18, iF20, F16 HP and Intl Tornado have done this, they were all based on the existing designs and classes and progressed to their formula classes. In short if you choose to do this than you are really in new and unchartered terrortory.
<br>
<br>What are really the arguments against the iF20 ? I really have seenonly one. It is to heavy, an d maybe by going lighter their is extra performance to be gained.This argument rather deceiving. Please all remember CFR 20 and M20 and also the M18 at last Round Texel. Did they really progress performance in undeniable magnitudes ? Even Marstrom himself indicates that the M20 is as fast upwind in non extreme ligth winds as the Intl. Tornado. What is noticable is the price tack. Is this price tag worth the performance ? Well, please give your answer and than ask yourself why there aren't that many Supercats around and 100.000 H16 's.
<br>
<br>If you ask me personally If I think if lightweight is the key to boosting 20 ft performance, I will have to answer "Doubtfull" Why ? limits as trailorwidth and YES the 20 ft. long hull itself. I'm sure tat everybody is familiar by now of the effect length has on wetted surface area of the hull. Ergo, more sailarea isn't possible because of width and less drag with given sailarea isn't possible because of the hulls with very low prismatic ratios. 20 footer are at a deadlock between parameters in this respect. Higher mast maybe ? Boost in light air, hit in stronger winds and more picthing. Bad regatta setup for most sailing conditions apart from light air lakes. And ofcourse the crew doesn't get heavier or stronger. Maybe we should go to 3 man crews and huge wings like the 18 ft. skiffs. Any takers for this scenario ?!
<br>
<br>Ask yourself what is you main goal ? Creating new cool One-Off designs or creating a new class with big fleets of good high level participation that is affordable.
<br>
<br>You may have guessed what my preference is. How does this rime with F16 H. Simple, that is why the F18 and A-cat rating equality is there ! And why the Equal performance Class is so important in the F16 HP setup. And ofcourse why the grandfathered One-design boats are so important to the F16 HP. Even though several call them F16 bastards. Great care has gone into the class to keep them as close to their on-design setups as possible.
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

Attached Files
3917- (120 downloads)

Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands