I just surfed over a couple of webpages and found that the following designs are ment for iF20 class.
<br>
<br>Nacra Inter 20
<br>Hobie Fox
<br>Ventillo F20
<br>Storm F20
<br>
<br>I know that Cirrus is seriously looking at designing a iF20 although there is not a prototype yet.
<br>
<br>Just to inform you.
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br>
<br><br><br>

http://www.catamaran.co.uk/IF20/pics%20page.htm
<br>
<br>Ventillo F20
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br><br>

thanks for the info --
<br>
<br>-Really like the amount of rocker- {curve for and aft } -in the hull profile ,--this is a much more gracefull cat through the water in waves ,will surf down waves more easily ,and also have reduced wetted surface for light air performance ,having a small P C -{prismatic coefficient } --ratio of hull volume from max. hull beam .
<br> Much like the older H-18 hull shape ,--very seaworthy and great in waves .
<br>
<br>-Barry noted in a previous post that the Ventilo dominated the races and ruined the class , suddenly all others were obsolete ,
<br>
<br>-Lets see ----the I-20 in the U S is lighter with 15 more sq ft of mainsail , proven much faster with its c f mast ,--There are only a few Foxes in the U S , and most Hobie brand loyal sailors are moving towards the 18 ft Tiger instead , --There is ONE active Storm 20 in the U K ,according to race results .
<br>
<br>-Believe all these excellent boat mfg. could build lighter --{higher performance }-versions for the U S market , They can target their BEST boat weight ---{360 LB } or less and provide correct sail area for that weight --prop. -288spin ,-192 main and 54 sq ft jib , approx the same as Euro 20s with a larger chute ,but 60 LB lighter , wITH MUCH BETTER PERFORMANCE , -OR we can purchase the basic platform and have sails made in the US by our local sailmaker .
<br>-ALL boat builders are very capable of building lighter better performance boats , -exs F=420 LB --uuggg --} --this is the main criticism by a great many cat sailors around the world ,---these F classes are too heavy .
<br>
<br>-Boats will have all the same basic parameters but, the U S versions will allow developement towards lighter higher performance 20s , --International teams can charter boats in that country for major events . -
<br> Some proposed major events and sponsor money to support the class are already beginning to be preliminarily presented .
<br>
<br>-All the best -
<br> Carl<br><br>

Carl
<br>It was not the Ventilo iF20 I was talking about. It was the Ventilo 20. A light and 10' wide cat rigged boat with a spinnaker. The hull shape looks like the CFR 20
<br>http://www.Ventilo.ch
<br><br><br>

Thanks Barry ,
<br> --not enough info , I misinterpreted your previous post .
<br>
<br>-Yes a lighter 10 ft beam cat will blow the doors off any 8.5 cat when the wind kicks in , unless the 8.5 b cat is lighter with ideal sail area for that wind strength , then it may be faster.--
<br>
<br> Barry , you have an engineering background , what are the potential problems with the graduated weight to sail area scale proposed in specific performance terms ,
<br> realize many may not understand it -{harder sell } -but what would be potential long term negative effects of adopting this rule ?
<br> The Inter 20 fits it perfectly as is ,or can add a larger chute .
<br> The 8,5 beam Tornado would fit with its existing sailplan spin version , and could add a 2nd larger chute , --the existing few F-20s could upgrade their sailplans to fit the rule , even the Nacra 6/0s with their large 348 sq ft chutes would fit it as they are .All existing 20 ft 8.5 beam cats fit the rule and can sail as they are ,upgrade , or most just add a second larger chute allowed by the proposed rule ,-2 chutes .-small and large.
<br>- Lighter better performance boats with proportionally sized sail area can be developed .
<br> Other than marketing and presentation to the general catsailing public ,--{best handled by major events and sponsor involvement } -what are the negatives ?
<br>
<br> Thanks Barry
<br> Very happy Thanksgiving to you .
<br>
<br> Carl<br><br>

Carl,
<br>
<br>Perhaps to settle the boat weight issue. We could put a rule in where we would start the weight at 400lbs. required and slowly lower the weight required by maybe two pounds a year so that it gives everyone time to react and keeps all of the older boats competitive for their life span.
<br>
<br>Just a thought,
<br>Mike Hill
<br><br><br>

Mike
<br> THat is a great proposal!! Maybe the Min. should start just scootch lower at 395 and drop by increments of 5 pounds every two years. This two year formula will keep people commited to a boat for multiple seasons and encourage designers/builders to move at a logical pace with R&D. I think there should be some for of homoglation clause in the rules that prevent one off rule beater boats from coming along. Say maybe five total boats built make it a legal boat for competition? WHat are your thoughts?
<br>
<br>Thanks
<br>Steve<br><br>

Carl
<br>I have a Clinical Engineering background; in short I am responsible for patient safety (when any equipment touches a patient) in a health care facility in Boston.
<br>The major problem I see is the selling part. The graduated weight to sail area scale may be the most perfect system to sail under but the average guy is not at home figuring out which boat at which weight will have an advantage. It is way to complicate for the average guy looking to get into the class. How do you convince Mike Hill that if he makes certain changes to his boat he will be fast? Some people wouldn’t spend a dime on different sail to sail in the class unless it is proven the boat with the changes is fast.
<br>I would not add a bigger spinnaker to the I20. I have an aerial picture of my boat at the Curacao Regatta. Looking that the picture the mast is really bending off. These were extreme conditions but we weren’t pushing real hard. Adding spinnaker area to the I20 would be asking for disaster. Under the rule it would fit into the rules but I wouldn’t be maxing it out like others will. Who is going to cut down a Tornado with a new sail plan? Everyone that has the new sail plan is racing in the Tornado class. I could get a real platform and built up from there but it would still cost $6000. Ok for some people to spend but not doable for most.
<br>Who is your audience? The only boats that are interested here are some of the I20’s and none of them are really interested is anything other that adopting the iF20 rules or a slightly modified version.
<br>If it is the dead boat society than that won’t be easy. The Hobie 20 is a dead class here. All of the active races have gone to other classes and the only boats leave are basically pleasure sailor. It’s not the 6.0 class. They get 15 boats at every race. They are a tough one-design class with some very good sailors. They will not split their class in half to go formula. If they want to go with spinnakers they will race with their class spinnakers.
<br>Where does that leave all of the boats to come from?
<br>What 20’ boats in Michigan are “hardcore” racers but don’t have a class?
<br>Is the existing I20 class there willing to welcome me in their fleet with a hot-rodded 20’ boat that is optimized to the max? I have the financial means to do that but my best friend (sails a 6.0) doesn’t. We had a blast racing one-design against each other. How is he going to feel in this formula when I show up with a tricked out boat to race him. I beat him because my boat is better. He won’t be racing for long.
<br>I hate to be negative and I know how much work as gone into the project. I think the cart is before the horse here. It is a marketing project and needs to be treated like one. The first question is who is your audience? How much of this audience has sent in info on the F-20 issue? Are we going in the direction that our audience is leading us to?
<br>
<br>
<br>Thanks Carl
<br>Happy Thanksgiving
<br>Barry
<br><br><br>

Spot-on on the question of who the audience is. I think there's two answers to this. 1) The current fleet of 20 foot cat sailors. 2) New blood drawn in by some generated buzz.
<br>
<br>The current sailors will have to be given incentive to go to a new class that requires a new boat or mods to their existing boats. Especially, if as noted, they will give up their previous action due to those mods.
<br>
<br>The new blood will be drawn in when they see how cool it is. But they won't see how cool it is unless boats are out there sailing, and it gets exposure.
<br>
<br>A rule that starts out very inclusive and morphs over the years to a new formula is certainly one way to go. It does rely on active management of the spec to ensure that it keeps moving.
<br>
<br>Another way may be like is done with the A-Class, I believe, where there is a two-tier rating. One for the newer lightwieght boats, and one for the older, heavier designs. So start out with a two tier system - one for the older designs, the H-20s and N6.0s and whatever. Any mods to those boats would be kept to something that could be undone for the local one-design action. The top tier is for the new boats, ones designed for the rule. This then could be closer to the existing international rule. Lower tier sailors can always move up to a newer boat when they're ready financially or skill-wise. People tired of spending on new equipment could move down instead of out.
<br>
<br>As time moves on, current top tier boats would become uncompetitive with the new designs and then could become eligible for the lower tier, giving a competitive used boat access point for newbies. Older designs would most likely eventually fall away except for those that like to tinker and upgrade.
<br>
<br>This way you can draw the current 20 foot sailors, and provide for new growth. With a current crop of sailors and the right moves, the buzz would be generated and the new blood might be attracted. Now the formula has momentum, and can evolve.
<br>
<br>At first you may have more lower than upper tier boats. But you have boats participating the F20 class, and I believe the upper tier will then grow.<br><br>Keith, Annapolis, Md.
<br>H-18
<br>Northstar 500 (monoslug)
<br>www.wrcra.org

Keith and Barry ,-thanks -
<br>
<br> Good points Keith , agree an A and B fleet system as we had way back when , or a modified and developement fleet that would certainly emerge ,
<br>
<br>-Thanks again Barry -
<br> Did not realize the sell aspect will potentially deter class involvement ,you are correct , this will be difficult ,-but do think we should not build a class around the I-20 ,or the Fox , they are both wonderfull cat designs. There are many better ones yet to be designed and built . If we only rely on the existing conditions of the declining state of the sport nothing different will be created from our efforts . Believe the reason for establishing this Formula class is to break the existing manufactures class oriented seperatist aspects that have partially lead to the declining numbers and to create a sailor first oriented class that includes and promotes ALL types and brands of catamaran racing sailors , hopefully creating enough interest to bring some new blood and get some older sailors that put away the harness to return to racing.-We need to work with Hobie and Performance but not exclusively establish rules to caiter to them either .--Sailors FIRST !!
<br>
<br>-A new type of rule does require [a leap of faith } to some extent , but what occures if we do nothing , -the sport continues to decline in numbers , we need new ideas , new classes , more people to get involved , and new exciting events to promote more activity in the sport.-
<br>
<br>-On the technical side of the Inter , good point on the mast , I saw one break , and of course numerous ones break in FL the 3rd day of the Worrell in the surf ,along with dozens of rudders and castings ,not a pretty site.
<br>-The solution may be as one noted designer has recommended to move the spin lead to 1/3 up from the stays at max. --Moving the lead bar down and adding a longer pole of snuffer piece extention {easily done by ordering a longer middle piece ,per mfg.in Calif } would take the s bend out , maintain the luff measurement plus some ,especially with some added mast rake , which the existing spin needs . This would maintain reasonable helm balance , reduce spin loads at the top , and add an increased luff angle to the wind providing more lift . This would take care of the extra 30 sq ft of proposed spin and give us better performance with the existing chute and correct a flaw in the existing sailplan scheme--, and yes , I would be the first to try it out .
<br>
<br>-Most existing breaks have occurred due to sailors releasing the mainsheet tention as they dive into a wave , The main acts as a backstay , --remember to keep mainsheet line in and only play the traveler , it is better to flip that snap a mast .
<br> you know this , sailing in Curaco , but is for the benifit of others considering the spin class on these larger more powerfull cats .
<br>
<br>-Mast builders will have to be aware of spin load requirements of each cat .
<br> -
<br>
<br>-<br><br>

Here's an example based on me. I sail/race an ancient Hobie-18. I know this the F-20 forum, but what I'm saying is a formula thing, doesn't matter if it is 16hp, 18, 20, whatever. I don't see an immediate desire or ability to upgrade to a Hobie Tiger or NACRA F-18, as much I like those boats. When F-18 racing comes about, if I would have to go head-to-head with the new boats, or spend a lot on my geriatric ride to compete, I probably wouldn't bother. Who knows. Open class gives me an outlet, and one-design is still an option, abeit an almost nonexistant one. But, if a two-tier arangement existed, well, sure, I'd go out and put my toe in the water with my old ride. Maybe I'd get the bug for a newer tier-one ride, or at least I might crew (if anyone wanted 200 lb crew). Honestly, I don't know how many are out there like me, so maybe it doesn't matter. Just something to consider!<br><br>Keith, Annapolis, Md.
<br>H-18
<br>Northstar 500 (monoslug)
<br>www.wrcra.org