Announcements
New Discussions
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Formula class rules yearly review ! READ ! #40925
12/11/04 08:58 AM
12/11/04 08:58 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Wouter Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel

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


Dear members,

Again a year has passed and we are back at our yearly review of the class rules.

Of course two issues have already been handled in May/June 2004 because of their pressing nature. So I don't expect many proposals to pop up at this review. However if you do have any suggestions or proposals then please enter them. Either in private to F16class@xs4all.nl or publically via a reply to this post.

Remember any proposal must be supported by a write-up that explains the reasons for the given proposals as well as a discussion of what the effects of not acting could be. Please also note that the proposals must make sense. I mean simply stating that the mast lengths should be lengthened to 9 mtr is non-sensical as all current F16's have 8.5 mtr masts and none of the F16 builders wants to have 9 mtr mast on their boats (expressed in writing to me). You may think that 9 mtr masts are an improvement personally but this is not the same being an improvement to the Formula 16 setup as a class.

So where do you guys see a problem in the F16 rules or see room to improve on them ?

With kind regards,

Wouter Hijink

Chairman Formula 16 class







Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
--Advertisement--
One proposal : mast tip weight [Re: Wouter] #40926
12/31/04 11:59 AM
12/31/04 11:59 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Wouter Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel

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


It is time to end the window in which proposals for modification or amendment of the Formula 16 class rules can be entered.

It seems that we are all very happy with current class rules setup and I must say that I largely agree with that. There is however one point that I would like to make more work off.

Either removing the mast tip weight rule completely or reducing its tip weight limit.

Truth be said and I ask for pardon with the parties who still feel for the current rule.


Reasons for it :

-1- The current tipweight appears not to serve the purpose it was intended to serve. The Superwing Alu masts appear not to have a noticeable disadvantage relative to carbon mast in the way of moment of enertia's.

-2- The current tipweight appears to be too high for modern carbon masts. I was asked by a carbon mast maker to lower the tip weight to a more reasonable weight. Two homebuilder builders have indicated that they had to add to much weight to the mast to get it up to F16 compliance, thus completely losing the optimal feel of the masts. It serves no purpose to hit carbon masts this hard.

-3- It seems to go against the spirit of the F16 rules to have this rule in the first place and then set it at the value at which it is now. I have no serious ground on which to base the assumption that a lower tipweight or even the full deletion of the rule would result in an unfair performance gain. Many people believe that an unfair advantage is present but the numbers simply don't support it to that extend.

-4- The F16 class kept its side of the negociations of late 2002, but a significant part of the other side simply disappeared after having campaigned for the inclusion of the rule. The rule was intended to make way for their inclusion in the F16 at a garanteed competitive level. There inclusion has been, well, remarkably uninspiring.

-5- With the introduction of the Tornado Carbon mast and the introduction of the Nacra I17R (F17) with carbon mast to Europe it will be wise that the F16 allows some extra flexibility with regard to carbon masts. We need to retain our attractiveness to these boats. It will also improve our standing to A-cat designs.

-6- It is quite possible that carbon masts are going to drop in price. Of course Stealth is already offering these at much lower prices than the competition and there are signs that other suppliers are going to surface that will do so too. The price of carbon is close to that of other fibres so that is not an issue anymore. Currently we can buy a full carbon hull cheaper than we can buy a carbon mast, this is weird to say the least. The well known names in carbon mast land do make excellent masts but also ask astronomical prices for them. There is movement in this field and I hope the F16 class will ride this way as a frontrunner in this.

-7- It could never be said at the time but a least halve of the reasons to include the tipweight rule was political of nature. The political nature of the situation has changed and it appears that the only effect of the rule was to make the F16 rules less optimal than we wished them to be.



I ran some numbers on the current situation and this is what came up :

AHPC Superwing (Taipan and Blade designs) tipweight = 100 %
F18 Typical tipweight (2 kg /mtr mast sections) = 121 %
F16 Current min tipweight (1.33 kg/mtr mast section) = 86 %
A-cat tip weight (0.9 kg /mtr mast section) = 63 %
Possible new F16 tipweight (1.1 kg .mtr mast section) = 73 %


However when we start looking at the bigger picture things start to change. Lets include the mastfittings and sails into comparison :

AHPC Superwing rig enertia = 100 %
F18 rig enertia = 134 %
F16 Current min rig enertia = 91 %
A-cat rig enertia = 83 %
Possible new F16 rig enertia = 82 %


Notice how we can get a more robustly constructed F16 mast to approximate the A-cat mast in the numbers ? This is despite the heavier F16 fittings and the heavier sails. The convergence is complete the result of the shorter mast length of the F16's. Mastlength is just such a dominant factor in these relations; weight per length isn't really.

However the picture improofs even more when we start looking at the full picture. With respect to dive recovery and oscillation the ratio between rig and platform is important. Think of it like this. All inertia in the rig is negative as that will exceggerate the dives and oscillation, but all enertia in the platform is good (positive) as that acts as a stable foot which increasing keeps the rig under control and limits diving and oscillations. It also allows the hull to punch better through the wave, BUT this is not of interest here. So lets look at the ratio's between rig and platforms


AHPC Superwing rig enertia = 100 % (double handed)
F18 rig enertia = 100 %
F16 Current min rig enertia = 91 %
Possible new F16 rig enertia = 82 %

So in doublehanded mode even the Superwing alu F16 rig is at least as good as the F18's. And the carbon masted rigs have come closer to the Superwing rig.


F16 solo Superwing = 100 %
A-cat rig enertia = 80 %
F16 current min = 91 %
F16 new rig = 82 %

In the solo case we have a very reasonably shot at being just as good as the A-cats which is very good indeed. The Superwing rig is only 18 % away. Now this may sound like alot but its translation in performance seems to be very small indeed.

I have personally sailed the Taipan F16 in different conditions during 2004 and I can honestly say that the platform doesn't seem to have any dive tendency at all. Nor did I at all feel like the rig was oscillation any more than the bare minimum. Since this summer I'm convinced that the superwing rig (alu) is already so lightweight that any gains linked to even less weight are all but neglectable. Afterall, how can a rig move about (or dive) even less than hardly at all ?

Lets not forget that Marstroms new Tornado Carbon mast with carbon spreaders and carbon this-n-that comes in at 15.5 kg overall weight. The AHPC aluminium superwing rigged mast comes in at 15.5 kg as well ! So who are we kidding here ? We are not talking about 20 kg FX-one rigged alu masts that are accidently of the same length as the F16 masts. Nor are we talking about 10 kg A-cat masts. What we are looking at are 15.5 kg Superwing alu masts or realistic 12.5 kg F16 carbon masts (5.5 kg tipweight). As you can see the alu and carbon rigs are already very close together in the F16 class, much closer than for example the I-17 alu and I-17R carbon rigs are. Actually a F16 sailor helped a I-17R sailor with raising his mast once and thought that hit Alu Taipan mast felt lighter. Considering that Marstroms Tornado mast of comparable length as the I-17R mast is only of the same weight as the Superwing rig makes this claim the more believable.

In short the Superwing rig is already at a advantage to its competition and already behave in such an optimal way that I truly think that any F16 carbon rig will be very hard to recognise as different let alone better beyond neglectable.

However, we're not done yet.

Because the above numbers give a better picture but I believe that there are addition comments that may proof to be the more important ones.

We all think carbon masts to be much better than alumimium and refer to the blistering performance of the A-cats as proof. The question is however how much of this obvious difference is related to the choice of material ?

We know for example how the wing masted Capricorn F18 made an impression on the other F18 still using teardrop shaped masts. When we look more closely we can also see that how all carbon masts are ALSO wingmast designs. There are non teardrop shaped carbon masts except for maybe the I-17R's. More and more I'm beginning to believe that the largest portion of the gains come from the wingmast crossection shape and less so from the choice of material. My own experiences with the Superwing rig last year have completely underlined this. The way the wingmast design behaves is key and that can be had in both alu and carbon.

Then we are still left with one more comparison. Both sailors and windsurfers claim that under certain conditions the carbon masts have better gust response. Quicker gust response. Carbon has a better weight to stiffness ratio than aluminum. This sounds very logical to me. Quicker to bend off in the beginning of the gust and quick to spring back at the end of the gust. However how much do F16's gain by this ? Or how badly are they affected by it.

Lets compare it to the A-cats.

Their masts are about 20 % longer above the hounds than F16's leading to rougly 72 % more enertia of the top. Their weight per mtr. is about 60 %. Their enertia is about 172 % * 60 % = 103.2 % = 103 % as that of the F16's. And carbon fibre laminate and alu have about the same stiffness coefficients of 75-80 GPa. Although it must be said that carbon laminate can be upgraded to 125 GPa (50 % more then alu), however nobody sails with the carbon equavalent of the stiffness of a telegraph pole. It is starting to become clear how close the two actually are, Must closer than simple enertia numbers of the mast suggest. The Superwing mast looks already to have equal enertia to stiffness ratio as a carbon A-cat mast. But the enertias of the tops are the same meaning that in the start of the gust both the alu superwing and the carbon A-cat mast drop away just as quickly. The carbon mast may still spring back quicker after the gust, but this is of importance because now that the enertia's of the tops are about the same the crossection of the alu mast can be entlarged to arrive at the stiffness that gives the alu mast exactly the same ratio of enertia to stiffness as any carbon a-cat mast. How can this be, simple answer really. A-cat masts are significantly longer and the 3rd order relationship impacts heavily on that. So yes alu A-cat mast will be inferiour to their carbon counterparts but shorter alu mast may well be not. Sure more luff length is a advangate in itself but as the as the F16 masts are limited in length the end result is that an Alu F16 mast can be made to closely mirror the gust response that is achieved on A-cats mast where higher technology is needed to do so..

This seems to be the theme with the F16;s. By going smaller we can achieve specs while using less high flying technology. Again I refer to the Tornado carbon mast of 15.5 kg and the F16 alu mast of 15.5 kg. Of course we all know that F16's weight in at 107 kg while the M20 weights in at 120 kg's (Texel measurement). Sure M20 is a more refined boat and much cooler because of its extensive use of high tech BUT I will feel no difference in lifting both masts and I'll still that driving the F16 over the sand takes less effort. When we compare the amount with which the hulls move relative to eachother the F16 wins again. It is often forgotten but dimension are very much part of designing an optimal boat as well.

So what is the point. Simple, there is nobody that claims that A-cats have an issue in dive recovery or oscillation and gustresponses of their carbon rigs. So why would we expect such things of the alu rigs of F16's when the numbers suggest we are close to comparable ? I think both designs are right up their near the point wether enough is enough. Sure we can get even BETTER results with F16 carbon masts but again how much gain can you expect when the basic version has no issues at all in these departments ?

I goes to far to get into the real detail here, but I serious expect the carbon masted F16's to be way more cool but not noticeably faster than the alu rigs. At least not enough to retain the mast tip rule.

There is still the reason of seaworthyness. I still see a real argument to prevent disposable masts or designs that are too lightly constructed and fail giving F16 a bad name as a whole.

Pieter saarberg once expressed he could build a good dependable F16 mast for 1.1 kg per meter. This is 200 grams per meter more than A-cat masts. If we run the numbers on that than we end up with a tipweight of 5.5 kg's ; 1 kg less than the current limit and 1 kg more than the modern A-cat rigs. And the numbers suggest we'll have an extremely good mast then.

I hope you forgive me for this post being a little bit poorly structured but I simply don't have the time to spend more effort on it.

I'm looking forward to your reactions.

Wouter



Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: Formula class rules yearly review ! READ ! [Re: Wouter] #40927
01/01/05 07:12 AM
01/01/05 07:12 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Hi all,

I would have to agree that the present tip weight is probably to high for carbon masts, after modifying a A class mast by gluing timber inside to strengthen the mast and increase weight. It was surprising how much needed to be added to get it near current weight and at this stage I still don't know if it is strong enough. So the current tip weight rule is questionable in it's ability to make masts strong as it doesn't preclude adding weight to a mast without strength.

Ultimately without making the rules more complex we realy can only rely on the sailors/makers of masts to make them strong enough to avoid breakages so they finish races. As to ensure increased weight of a mast leads to strength you realy need a balance test along with a mast weight. To complex for what F16 wants, leave this sort of rules for one design dinghies.

It may even be possible to do away with the tip weight and just have a total mast weight, although as this is no easier to measure we might stick with what we have. Either way I believe we should include in the rule that no correctors are allowed as this defeats the purpose of having the weight rule, being strength. Of course how to include this is is open to debate.

What is the tip weight of a carbon stealth mast?
From what I understand it is the only carbon mast currently being used on F16 in any numbers and I assume it is surviving. Surely it should be used as an example in this discussion.

In conclusion I would agree with the idea of reducing the tip weight but how far I am not sure, Wouters suggestion puts it alot lighter than alloy super wing, which would give the perception of a large advantage although I agree with him that it is not that great in reality. I have always used alloy masts on my sailboards and kept up with the carbon mast guy's. The gust response etc. is a very small percentage improvement.

I do think we should include in the weight rule.
That the mast is not allowed weight correctors. All materials included in the mast should be structual and be permanently fixed eg. glued or welded.

Looking forward to more discussion, we all love /hate rules.

Regards Gary.

Emergency F16 ruling [Re: Wouter] #40928
01/04/05 03:20 PM
01/04/05 03:20 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Wouter Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel

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


While investigating the tip weight issue I can across some 2002 input data that in light of current knowlegde seemed weird.

Back at the time of introducing the tip-weight rule it was agreed among the parties that the we would set the minimum required tipweight at the level of the Stealth F16 carbon mast tipweight as they were produced. At the time it was believed that that tipweight was 6.5 kg. Somewhere a misunderstanding must have occured as the mast have a tipweight of 5.5 kg. I discover this when running some numbers, I contacted Stealth Marine and they remeasured their mast and come back with the 5.5 kg value.

It is my fault that I didn't caught up with this anomely earlier, for which my appologies. Actually I have to dive into the archieves of past communications in order to make sure that I just didn't make a typo in 2002. Doesn't really matter now. Due to private mails by mast builders and homebuilders we are now ready to correct this error.

We are going to continue with the proposal and vote of on the tip weight rule in slightly modified form. However, using my authority as the Formula 16 chairman and giving as cause the unacceptable situation that maintaining the current rule would immediately outlaw 15 Stealth F16's and some 24 Stealth R's from the class, I immediately lower the minimum required mast tip weight from 6.5 kg to 5.5 kg.

The final vote will decide if the tipweight rule gets deleted in it entirety or that it remains with a value equal or lower than 5.5 kg. I would like to do some more research on the issue before launching the vote, however I do agree that not much more margin is available anymore. Afterall A-cat masts come out at 4.5-4.75 kg tipweights, so that is the bottom realistic limit. And we can't really go higher then 5.5 kg anymore without chasing off a larger segment of the F16 class.

Wouter






Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: One proposal : mast tip weight [Re: Wouter] #40929
01/06/05 11:23 PM
01/06/05 11:23 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 548
MERRITTISLAND, FL
Matt M Offline
addict
Matt M  Offline
addict

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 548
MERRITTISLAND, FL
Wouter,

You realy have work on being a little less wordy.

In looking at what is available, it seams just to not matter. We are currently limited in available materials, carbon and aluminum being the most often used. As you point out, there is very little difference in finished assembled weight between these 2 materials GIVEN the same exterior cross section and design loads.

The advantages between the 2 materials can be sumed up as:

ALUMINUM; Inexpensive (in quantity)
CARBON; Ajustable. (Laminates can be tapered and modified to put strength or stiffness wherever necessary to meet the sail makers desire. It is also molded so varying cross section is possible if desired)

Anyone can build a super light mast for an F16, but nature is going to break most of those. The design loads are going to naturaly limit the reliable minimum. I am a firm believer in that given boats that are within reasonablely close proximity to one another in specs, the end determination in finish is controlled by the crew.

Except from the potential question of safety, I would have no problem in eliminating the mast tip weight from the F16 rules given they are made from carbon or aluminum. When someone invents that miracle material we have all be waiting for then maybe we could re-evaluate it.

Matt


Re: One proposal : mast tip weight [Re: Wouter] #40930
01/24/05 12:12 AM
01/24/05 12:12 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Wouter Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Saarberg seems to think that 1.1 kg per mtr is a realistic minimal weight for a sloop rigged spi equipped carbon mast. => comes out at tip weight 5.5 kg = about where Stealth Masts are.

I got thinking and before I spend alot of time chasing down mastbuilders etc it may be wise to hold a first voting and let the follow-up be guided by that.

So here is a simple vote.

Please only F16 sailors voting in this one. So only owners of F16's and Taipan 4.9 [color:"red"] WITH [/color] a spinnaker setup and who do sail occasionally in the configuration.



Wouter


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: One proposal : mast tip weight [Re: Wouter] #40931
01/24/05 12:18 PM
01/24/05 12:18 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
Stewart Offline
old hand
Stewart  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
why not just delete the mast weight rule entirely.

Then set a single mast registration rule.
Simple and effective.

Can you elaborate ? [Re: Stewart] #40932
01/24/05 02:10 PM
01/24/05 02:10 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Wouter Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel

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

Can you elaborate on what you mean exactly Stewart ?

Wouter


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: Can you elaborate ? [Re: Wouter] #40933
01/24/05 06:21 PM
01/24/05 06:21 PM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 539
taipanfc Offline
addict
taipanfc  Offline
addict

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 539
Wouter

More than half the current F16s you list on your world list currently use Aluminium masts. Getting rid of the tip weight rule makes them uncompetitive. What's the point of alienating half the fleet over night? You are talking about a reduction of 3kg swinging around in the air that can be added to the hulls/boards etc.

And should there not be a majority of those members/F16 sailors required to vote in this to pass this rule. An internet poll is not entirely accurate. Most classes require 2/3 to pass something major like this.

JC

Re: Can you elaborate ? [Re: Wouter] #40934
01/24/05 07:21 PM
01/24/05 07:21 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
Stewart Offline
old hand
Stewart  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
Wouter,
The mast builders know exactly light a mast can be built without compromising structure. Be it aluminium or carbon.
(before anyone raises boron composites. A B/C mast would be lighter BUT brittle and very subject to shock loads from a kite).
So knowing that the builders know far better than the lay sailor. Let them decide how to build a mast. By dropping any weight restrictions. We have already height and depth restrictions.

However to make sure no one gets stupid by sailing with the mast de jour (Mast of the day). Put is a rule that each mast, boom, pole and main needs to be registered. A replacement may be substituted as long as the old is deregistered and the registration made in writing and at the discretion of the measurement committee / registerer. (this has worked successfully in the skiffs). Especially with carbon as no two are exactly alike and thus each needs separate tuning!!

This cleans ups the rules and makes it easier to administer.

Im sure the Tiapan skippers will object. However if the skiff experience is a true record. Then the carbon mast and aluminium tip weights issue will be shown to be a red herring.

S..

Re: Can you elaborate ? [Re: taipanfc] #40935
01/24/05 07:41 PM
01/24/05 07:41 PM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,012
South Australia
Darryl_Barrett Offline
old hand
Darryl_Barrett  Offline
old hand

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,012
South Australia
Just maintain the same "overall weight" of the catamaran but delete all reference to the mast weight and/or structure (other than it has to be a "mast" and not a "wing") then any reduction in mast weight and/or structure would be relatively minimal to any difference in performance whether real or just percieved. Carbon fibre for masts will very soon be a necessity for most sailing craft, not primarily as the means of obtaining "better performances" but as the means of securing actual supply of masts, and by not incorporating that realisation NOW will not only create greater problems in the near future for the supply of masts but it will also tend to "restrict" future growth of the class.
Beides, if anyone has a problem with something as "minor" to overall performance as the variation in the small difference that "mast tip" weight will have over the individual sailing skills of the relative sailors, then give the aluminium masted boats a small percentage handicap advantage,
(like 0.0001% should cover it)

Re: Can you elaborate ? [Re: taipanfc] #40936
01/24/05 11:22 PM
01/24/05 11:22 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Wouter Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel

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


Quote

More than half the current F16s you list on your world list currently use Aluminium masts. Getting rid of the tip weight rule makes them uncompetitive.



Unproven and largely hypothetical. Also no designer or boat builder I spoke to cares a damn wether some guys puts a carbon mast on their designs. Blade is seriously not threatened by the Stealth carbon mast and I don't have any sign that many sailors are at all intimidated by it.

I have my own personal opinions in this matter but as an engineer/advicer I can not find much ground to support alu = uncompetitive.

Besides, there are clear signs that both builders and sailors prefer the alu superwing mast section. For its price, performance and ease of maintenance. Over here in the Netherlands I even get specific requests for alu masts as sailors perceive them as more robust and maintenance free.

Why does everybody think that carbon is some magical material that is better in everything ?

Simply put, as long as the Superwing sharing agreement is maintained we'll see the majority of boats sail with that mast simply because most builders favour them.



Quote

What's the point of alienating half the fleet over night?



Which part of the fleet is that exactly ?

I mean, the class will certainly loose over 30 boats in Europe if it maintains the 6.5 kg tipweight, simply because those boats would be banned. When the class deletes the rule than we MAY loose a handfull of sailors.

What is next ? Have the width rule limit F16's to 2.34 mtr ? Maybe the F16's should also ban the larger squaretops we are sailing with and while we are at it ban the longer luffed selftacking jib as well ! Ohh and ban glass/kevlar hulls because these surely must be more competitive than timber/epoxy ones. Where does it end ?

How many times was the end result of these changes that it didn't make much difference if it made any at all ? Timber/epoxy platforms still winning championships after 10 years and as recently as 2003 I believe ?

Sure the feel and comfort of sailing improved with some changes (new Taipan rudders and stocks) but did speed improve by any measureable amount ?

I know from my mainsail design that it handles gusts significantly better than the older Taipan mainsail but it did not have a higher topspeed. Same with the Ashby sails. These are easer to control and trim but not any faster when both sails are trimmed right. Maybe we should ban Ashby sails or force him to make more difficult sails so a certain group of sailors can FEEL more competitive ?

Again, were do we stop ? Were is the line.

Fabio and his significant other sail at 115 kg; should we force them to carry a "tip weight" that brings their combined weight at 130 kg ?

Are we serious working ourself up over 3 kg's in a rig that weights in at 25-28 kg in total ? (mast, sails, shrouds, blocks, halyards, spreaders etc)

The cold hard truth is that the standard Taipan 4.9 despite all these "issues" is still a hell of a competitive boat. And the superwing mast is a hell of good mast, on which it is difficult to improve upon.


I understand that several sailors are really in awe about the material carbon, and readily believe they are uncompetitve overnight if carbon masts are allowed (was there a big roar when sails went from Dacron to Mylar/Kevlar/Pentex /). But how much difference can a Carbon mast really make ? Lets make a wild claim 30 sec in a hour ? How many of you finish within 30 seconds of Fabio in any conditions ? Or Andrew for that matter.

How competitive does halve of the fleet think they are now ?

Another halve of them think they won't be competitive with a spinnaker as they are too light, to small or too young. Fabio and crew are both of the first two things and still won their (spi) races at the DCC. With that very lovely small crew of his pulling on a 17.5 sq. mtr. spi in 15 knots and over. I see crews of as little as two 10-14 year olds pulling kites in 20 knots of wind on a Hobie dragoon and then they are bloody hard to catch as well.


What about kite sailing is to difficult for singlehanding ? Tell Hollis Caffee that, did just that in 15 knots and over at Tradewinds. Or Gary of Altered ? Or any of a score of others.

You know what I really do think ?

That uncompetitiveness is a creation of the mind. The minute you think you are uncompetive is the instant in which you become uncompetitive. And this has nothing to do with 3 kg more or less in your mast or (much larger) differences in crew weights.

You just have to learn to sail well and maximize your strong points.


Quote

You are talking about a reduction of 3kg swinging around in the air that can be added to the hulls/boards etc.


Of course my reply can now only be :

"You think that matters much ? Much, as in relation to those 25-28 kg's allready swinging about up there as well as the 70 kgs of platform being pulled through the same motions by the shrouds, not to mention the 75 kg to 150 kg crews ? "

"You think that being 3 kg over min class weight so you can put those kg's into hulls/boards as well makes you uncompetitive ? More so than sailing with a crew that is 3 kg above optimal weight ? "

How does Ellen McArthur win those big races ? It is not like she is big and strong like 90 % of her competition.

So what does really make a crew competitive ?


Quote

And should there not be a majority of those members/F16 sailors required to vote in this to pass this rule. An internet poll is not entirely accurate. Most classes require 2/3 to pass something major like this.



Yeah, but F16 is certainly not like most other classes. Thank God for that !

If 2/3 of the class is always right then we would never have had the spi equipped Tornado but simply a dead Tornado class and a different boat in the Olympics. Maybe not even a multihull.

If 2/3 of a class is always right then we wouldn't have 30 Stealths in the F16 class.

If 2/3 of a class is always right then we would not have a spinnaker on fast lightweight 16 footers.

If 2/3 of a class is always right then we wouldn't have Hobie Tigers that can measure up against the other F18's

If 2/3 of a class is always right than we would all still be sailing Hobie 16's and Prindle 16's

If 2/3 of a class is always right than we would still have Tornado classic class. The simple fact that there isn't says alot for the commitment and value of 2/3rd of a class.

2/3rd of nearly any class is made up of scared people; who will vote down ANY change from they currently own. This is a receipe for stagnation and honestly, stagnation in any catamaran class is at this particular time a prelude to death. Even the laser dinghy class he modernized over the last 2 years by allowing more cleats, block and purchase systems on the boats.


Besides we still have not established wether this change is something "MAJOR" to begin with.

Also please note that this vote is only a preliminary one. It guides the follow-up path as I said the accompanying text.


And in addition to that, as a chairman, I don't see much reason in maintaining a rule to satisfy a group of sailors that doesn't do F16 anyway.

However if this issue is creating a big stirr in the rest of the F16 class then we will certainly have a written voting proces where every voter is verified as a F16 boat owner/racer (with race results as F16 in the last 2 years). Than we'll see exactly how many F16's sailor truly think bad fibes when thinking about deleting the tip weight rule.


James, it may be that large portions of this reply may not relate to you personally. Still, the situation is the sameall the time. We hear nothing from the general area near you except when F16 rules are being relaxed or when a perceived uncompetitiveness to the One-Design Taipan 4.9 design is experienced. I will certainly do my best to adress these concerns but put everything in a form that is acceptable to all, but I will certainly not go as far as two years ago. Then the area around you had some value, but now honestly, it doesn't matter what that area thinks or feels. However as I said earlier, I want to to do good by you guys and will endeavour in that direction as I feel the F16 class spirit demands.


Wouter




Last edited by Wouter; 01/24/05 11:35 PM.

Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: Can you elaborate ? [Re: Wouter] #40937
01/25/05 12:21 AM
01/25/05 12:21 AM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 539
taipanfc Offline
addict
taipanfc  Offline
addict

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 539
All I can say Wouter is:

"Don't assume that assumption"

Don't have to write essays as replies as some people do have to work.

In that case .. [Re: taipanfc] #40938
01/25/05 12:49 AM
01/25/05 12:49 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Wouter Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel

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

In that case explain to us why a carbon masts would make all other designs uncompetitive over night. And no, "3kg swinging around up there" is not enough.

Secondly are you selling your Taipan 4.9 ?

If so, are you buying one back ?

If not then I rest my case.

If you are then are you buying an Taipan F16 ?

If not then I'll rest my case again.

If you are buying an F16 and are seriously worried in the alu-carbon mast issue then, and only then, lets continue to analyse the situation and come up with a comparison between your alu-masted F16 of choice and the same design with a carbon mast.

Sorry James, I may be barking up the wrong tree here, but I've been in these discussions so many times that I have acquired a short temper on these issues. Especially with Australian Taipan 4.9 sailors who don't really want to sail F16 anyway. You may be different but several others are(were) not.

So lets stop fooling one-another and say it like it is.

You wanna be an F16 sailor ? Good, I will do everything in my power to make the class attractive to you.

You wanna be a OD Taipan 4.9 sailor ? Equally fine by me, but please don't mingle to much with F16 class rules decisions, you belong to a different class.

To other readers, there is some private communication going on on tip weights with people I seriously don't expect to sail F16's in the future. I don't see any point in these communications at all if the only goal of them is to limit the F16 class in getting to get to far ahead of the standard One-Design Taipan 4.9's. That is called throttling.

For Taipan 4.9 sailors who do sail F16's or want to sail F16's, I'm all ears and will do my utmost to keep racing fair to you guys. That is why you may race with oversized jibs for example. And we (not I in this respect) are serious analysing the carbon masts and their impact.

Wouter



Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: In that case .. [Re: Wouter] #40939
01/25/05 01:22 AM
01/25/05 01:22 AM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 539
taipanfc Offline
addict
taipanfc  Offline
addict

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 539
Yes I am selling my boat. No I am not immediately buying one back. I am going backpacking for a while then going to work in London. Need to progress my career to be able to buy more boats.

When I am back in Australia I will be buying a Taipan. This will most likely be a brand spanking new one. Whether or not I race it I race my Taipan as 4.9OD or F16 is all dependent on the best racing. Hence my interest in the proposed rules changes.

In relation to 3kg extra weight on the mast. I am not an engineer so I can not put up any numbers whatsoever to support my argument. The only thing I can say is why does every hi-performance yacht try and save weight aloft?

In relation to your other comments. Your views are very polarising so you have to expect that people will become upset. As Chairman I believe that you do need to be diplomatic and that people do have a right to their views. If they are making comments or criticisms it is because they have an interest in F16. They are not throttling the development and growth of the F16 class.

JC

Okay, I respect this .... [Re: taipanfc] #40940
01/25/05 08:00 AM
01/25/05 08:00 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Wouter Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel

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

I respect this.

Allow me to reply your last post with a few additional comments.

Quote

"When I am back in Australia I will be buying a Taipan ... Whether or not I race it I race my Taipan as 4.9OD or F16 is all dependent on the best racing."



That is a argument I can react to. F16 racing in Aus and for that matter in other parts of the world is grown and developped by having multiple builders in the class. It gives the class both stability and a increased numbers if all builders promote their product next to the class as a whole. This is of course evident. In order to keep builders in the class or attract more builders in to the class we are faced with two issues :

-1- Some builders do not want to be dependent on a remote extrusion company as a source of their mast.

-2- Some builders want to maintain a more firm hold on the Goodall Superwing sharing deal.

Both necessitate allowing carbon masts in the class.

Of course we can do that at tipweight = 6.5 kg, however for some reason 30 F16 boats do not comply with this part of the rule.

Don't ask me how, because I was under the impression they were compliant till 2 month ago. But it turned out they aren't and probably never were. So pretty much we have to either ban all these boats or lower the tip weight to 5.5 kg. Pretty much 5.5 kg is pretty close to what appears as the minimum realistic tip weight anyway, so if we are going to lower to this level why not remove the rule altogether ?

This last option is both favoured by a good portions of the sailors, if my perception is right, and is not feared by the builders. Both Blade builders will continue to use the Superwing section and so too will AHPC.

I also found that some sailors, like the guys in Switserland want carbon masts.

It will be evident by opening up the carbon mast rule or deleting it both builders and new customers will be more happy. This will translate itself in more sailors and as such as improved racing over time.

Pretty much the expected growth of opening up the rules is bigger than any loss expected due to NOT maintaining the current rule. This is issue 1.

Issue 2, The F16 rules are "spirited" around the concept that only important factors are limited. The current mast tipweight rule doesn't seem to live up to this criterium. It simply doesn't appear to ban a clear inequality in the way that limits on width or sailarea do for example.

This issue is of course all about numbers and engineering I understand that. However before we all vote on the rules we need to try to understand that there is hardly a sound scientific basis supporting a perceived inequality between boats when lowering mast tipweight. The case behind width is very clear, so to behind limits on sail area and mast length. The case behind the tipweight is largely a faith-based one. What we do have is the fact that the boats with the alu mast certainly do not feel hampered by it (diving or having slow dying oscilations). Not in the way I can personally attest to when looking at the Nacra 5.5, FX-one and other alu masted designs. So what we have ended up with is a rule that both fails to have a clear scientific basis and fails to have a clear empirical basis.

So I repeat : The current mast tipweight rule doesn't seem to hold up to the ultimate F16 criterium for class rules.



3rd issue; as a class chairman I rather organise the checking of boats with fewer limits. And measuring the mast tip weight is very much a measurement that requires both time, manpower and space. This is all fine if we get alot of equality in return but it is just foolish if it tipweight doesn't really matter much.

4th issue : In the past one of the main reasons to have the tip weight rule was to garantee carbon masts that would hold up to rough F16 sailing. Now a certain builder broke a few masts will experimenting with carbon masts but their current 5.5 kg tipweight masts seem to hold up pretty well. A few homebuilders are sailing with underweight masts right now that are made compliant with lead or timber glues inside the top of the mast. Arguably both modes do little to inceases the resistance of the mast against abuse or harsh conditions. So the rule is failing in its goal of garanteing dependable mast. Especially now as little over 30 boats (25 % of the class) will all have to put batteries up their mast tops. It will be a little awkward to do so because that "would make their masts more dependable in rough conditions"

I agree that this issue of the 30 non-compliant boats is something I'm not happy. But that is not something for this public forum to discuss in detail. Were the tipweight a very important factor than the class would move to ban this non-compliance and force everybody to become compliant. However, it appears that this tipweight is not a serious factor if one at all, so the question becomes do we still ban these 30 boats ? Do we ban them on something that may well be insignificant. Everybody must make their own appreciation of this. But remember that ones you'll be on the receiving end of such a vote, so it will be wise to really consider this tipweight voting from the perspective of the others. It will be very tempting to vote down anything that doesn't hurt you. But I fear we'll end up voting down the oversized jib dispensation for the Taipans in the next vote. And this is the reason why F16 class does not have a "2/3rd of the class forces a decision" setup.


5th issue ; Their is movement on the front of carbon masts. There are some initiatives to have these produced at much reduced prices. It is possible that carbon masts end up being about as expensive as an Alu mast. As good as all other classes that mean a thing internationally are moving in the direction of carbon masts. Tornado, F20's, A-cats, all except the F18's. Also part of our direct competition is moving in the direction. It may turn out to be vital for us in the long term to open up our rules to allow us to follow the trend when the need to do so arises. This is of course very important in growing our class and F16 racing everywhere. No racing is as unattractive of racing in a dead or dying class. It may not be perfect but a vital class is always to be prefered over one that is losing the battle with the competition. Even if some inequality exist between tipweight this may well be worth accepting if it garantees continued vitality. A hard issue to make judgement upon, I understand, but nevertheless something that must be looked at really hard.


6 th issue ; what is uncompetitiveness really. 90 % the fleet will not change position relative to other sailors when their boat for some reason is 1 to 2 % slower OR faster than the others. That is simply the case in reality. Personally I can't not come close to either Fabio, Andrew or Jennifer even when sailing a Tornado and my life depended on it. For this part of the fleet it doesn't matter at ALL wether or not a thing like tipweight makes a noticeable difference or not. Competitiveness in their league is totally determined by sailing skills and the amount of practise they are willing to put in. So the question really becomes how important is any small inequality with respect to the top 10 % of sailors. These guys tend to experiement largely with sail cut and trim anyway and often buy new suits of sail regulary. They buy polyester nylon spinnakers and 3D molded sails if they can gether the money for it. They sail with the latest foil shapes and what not else. We can't realistically ban all of this and for these guys it is a piece of cake to buy a carbon mast if they feel that makes them competitive for 1st place. I personally have a really hard time explaining to a whole class of sailors how this is unfair to them, ASSUMING that a noticeable difference exists which we simply can't proof right now ? First, 90 % of them isn't competitive with the top 10 % of the class at their level of commitment anyway and secondly a good tack or proper start is enough to fully compensate for any small inequality if ever such a thing exist. And this is when we don't even look at differences in crew weight. All classes currently accept differences in crew weight of at least 15-20 kg's without much fuss, but we feel that some other factor possibly giving the same amount of inequality or less is unacceptable. This is simply not consist, actually it is being subjective. So the question really is what is competitiveness ?

It is indeed my personal opinion that we often make too much fuss about things that don't really matter much, if at all. On both engineering principles and the feel of sailing with the superwing mast I truly feel that tip weight is a mute point when racing F16 designs of different make and with different crews against one another. In any way, alot more mute than say sailarea or mast height.

And to end this post the last issue :

7th issue ; after close examination I came to the conclusion that an alu mast can be designed to have the same weight to stiffness ratio as a carbon mast. Simply by adjusting the ratio between enertia of the crossection and the density of the material. If you are using ribs inside the mast to alter the crossection enertia than you won't alter the overall weight of a given alu mast. Note how this means that you can have any ratio of weight to stiffness in an alu mast. By scaling the cross section of the mast for this optimal cross section shape with ribs you can end up with any bending curve. So, with proper designing you can get a very optimal alu mast section. Something I think the Superwing mast achieved. This only leaves the typicall lighter weight of carbon mast in the way of overall boat weight or improved dive recoverey as the only factors that could favour a carbon mast over an alu one. Noting that in the F16 format the difference is pretty much limited to 3 kg and the Alu masted F16's don't have any issues with dive recovery at all makes any NOTICEABLE inequality between carbon mast and alu mast very unlikely. Let alone an unacceptable inequality.


Now several sailor may have read all this and still decide that they think tip weight a major factor in performance To them I say what do you want me to do about redesigned alu masts or carbon mast with the full tip weight but different crosssections ? To them I say, the feeling of uncompetitiveness is an issue that is far better solved in your own mind then by any class rules. That and losing some 15 kg of body weight and train sailing at least 15 hours a week.


Wouter


P.S. Sorry about this essay James, but how else can I explain it ?




Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Announcement : please read ! Important [Re: Wouter] #40941
01/25/05 08:12 AM
01/25/05 08:12 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Wouter Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel

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

James named the F16 class voting on this forum "not entirely accurate"

In order to nip this one in the butt I would like to ask any F16 boat owner (meaning a true F16 or a Taipan 4.9 with a spinnaker setup) to mail me privately at Formula16class@hotmail.com and express his or her unease at the proposed relaxation or deletion of the tip weight rule.

This way the voting can be fully verified and is is fully private.

Sailors may also send in their mails of support for relaxing or deleting the tip weight rule.

Anybody who does not send in any mail is assumed to support what ever the body of local class heads is deciding (Phill Brander, Eric Poulsen, John Pierce, Steve Mellet, Scott McCook and Wouter Hijink)

This window to send in your mails will run from now (25 jan 2005 to 25 feb 2005)

You are required to supply your full name, boat name (if any), boat type and your sailnumber. Only one vote per individual boat is allowed, as always. So you vote as a crew. If you don't satisfy these 5 conditions then your mail will be thrown out.


Thank you,

Wouter Hijink

Chairman Formula 16 class.


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: In that case .. [Re: taipanfc] #40942
01/25/05 08:45 AM
01/25/05 08:45 AM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 51
Queensland, Australia
Philthy Offline
journeyman
Philthy  Offline
journeyman

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 51
Queensland, Australia
If the real problem with the tip weight is this 30 boats that have somehow snuck below minimum then why not just get them to add some weight just the same as Gary had to with his Altered.
Cheers Phil

Re: In that case .. [Re: Philthy] #40943
01/25/05 10:37 AM
01/25/05 10:37 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Wouter Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel

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

Altered doesn't comply with the 6.5 kg tip weight rule either. That was undoable.

he had to put 2 kg in the very top of his mast and as such his moment of enertia would come out at more than the AHPC superwing mast. This is the problem with tip weights. They are determine by first order moments while the the moment or enertia is a second order moment. So to Altered this was neither fair NOR safe (boat going turtle)

I forgot to mention that in my other posts but there are way to cheat the tip weight rule. You have the 6.5 kg tip weight but with less enertia than the rule aimed to allow.

With progressing knowlegde and simulation it was found that the tip weight rule is less effective then was assumed at the beginning. I'm to blame for that, I know, but now that I know I'm trying to correct the mistakes.

Wouter


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: In that case .. [Re: Wouter] #40944
01/26/05 05:54 PM
01/26/05 05:54 PM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 539
taipanfc Offline
addict
taipanfc  Offline
addict

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 539
Wouter

Will send you email with my vote

Another issue not considered, INSURANCE.

In Australia it is becoming more expensive to insure your boat on a yearly basis. In the cases of some insurance companies, as soon as you mention carbon mast you have to insure the mast seperately from the rest of the boat. That is 2 policies so even greater cost.

Since most insurance companies follow each other in being bastards I am sure that this will become the norm. Many insurance companies were stung when carbon masts first came in and perceive them to be greater risk.

Not everything has to come down to performance.

JC

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Moderated by  Damon Linkous, phill, Rolf_Nilsen 

Search

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 426 guests, and 69 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