Announcements
New Discussions
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Q 3 : What do you want covered in the rules ? #678
07/12/01 07:36 AM
07/12/01 07:36 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
Introduction :
<br>
<br>We all have opinions about what should have been outlawd and what not. what is fair and what not and what should be regulated in a particular manner.
<br>
<br>The question :
<br>
<br>Where do you see a pitfall ? What do you think should be regulated in the rule framework and what should not. And how such it be regulated or deregulated ?
<br>
<br>Please give a complete reasoning in your reply.
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
--Advertisement--
Re: Q 3 : Carbon Masts, Pole length,Beam [Re: Wouter] #679
07/13/01 01:53 PM
07/13/01 01:53 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,449
P
phill Offline

veteran
phill  Offline

veteran
P

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,449
I think most of what I have below is already covered but interested in peoples opinion regarding subject line.
<br>
<br>Length, beam , min rigged weight, jib size, rated mainsail area,gennaker luff max length, gennaker max size, pole length past the bows (as per texel ratings, I think 800mm)
<br>
<br>I like the way Rated mainsail area takes care of mast length.
<br>My preference would also be mast material.
<br>I'd like to avoid carbon masts because of relative cost to aluminium.
<br>Just my opinion- very interested to what others think.<br><br>

Attached Files
687- (189 downloads)

I know that the voices in my head aint real,
but they have some pretty good ideas.
There is no such thing as a quick fix and I've never had free lunch!

Carbon masts, Pole length,Beam [Re: phill] #680
07/13/01 08:36 PM
07/13/01 08:36 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
In order :
<br>
<br>Length : I'm happy with mast to sailarea dependency formula as used in measurement system. My preference to genaker pole Pole length : Texel/FFV/ISAF rule of 0,8 meter passed bows, But than again I'm in a Texel area. Width of boat ; everything goes as long it is trailorable horinzontally all over the world = max 2.55 meters (?)
<br>
<br>min rigged weight: I choose the phychological boundery of 100 kg's ready to sail 2-up. Still minimal rigged weight is of not much important as equality is fixed by formula in which weight is a variable. As long as the performance prediction is equal to the F18 class. The solo platform will come in a little lighter. Why a minimum weight at all, to garantee thatolder boats stay competitive and to give some garantee of constructial robustness. Furthermore I have let myself be inspired by the fact that this weight limit can be reach by building in Timber. This will add to the low entry into the class.
<br>
<br>, jib size: I would like to see a minimum size and a maximum size
<br>
<br>, rated mainsail area : All for it
<br>
<br>gennaker luff max length: Need more thinking time
<br>
<br>gennaker max size : For now just fix it at 17 sq. mtr.
<br>
<br>, pole length past the bows (as per texel ratings, I think 800mm)
<br>
<br>
<br>>My preference would also be mast material.
<br>I'd like to avoid carbon masts because of relative cost to aluminium.
<br>>Just my opinion- very interested to what others think.
<br>
<br>I'm in doubt. The HT in F16 HT stands for High Tech. Can we honestly outlaw carbon masts then ? Aluminium is much cheaper that is true. We might even need Carbon mast to get the boats down to 100 kg's sail ready weight. On the other hand I've heard Boyer say that the aluminium mast on a Taipan 4.9 is only marginally lighter than a carbon one. I don't know how true this is.
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br>
<br><br><br>


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: Q 3 : What do you want covered in the rules ? [Re: Wouter] #681
07/15/01 10:06 AM
07/15/01 10:06 AM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
Stewart Offline
old hand
Stewart  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
Wouter,
<br>I would prefer to see as few restrictions as possible..
<br>Max length, max width then either max mast height, or max luff length.. or possibly max sail area.. allow single or multiple crews but if one nominates as a single (or double) the regatta must be sailed as that..
<br>as for genacker. just rate the max luff length..
<br>
<br>I believe the 100 kg min is too high.. Firstly you wish a High Tech class then you suggest it should heavy enough to encourage be lowish tech construction.. Seems a tad od.. Perhaps the class should be F16 MT where M is moderate ..
<br>
<br>If someone wishes to build a nomex carbon hull with M18 style rig then I would suggest its what we should allow..
<br>What about a solid wing mast with a genacker? It would be HT surely.. Would this be legal?<br><br>

Attached Files
726- (224 downloads)
Re: Q 3 : What do you want covered in the rules ? [Re: Stewart] #682
07/16/01 07:33 PM
07/16/01 07:33 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,449
P
phill Offline

veteran
phill  Offline

veteran
P

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,449
Stewart,
<br>There is a lot of truth in what you say. Marstrom is probably the only manufacturer currently equiped to make
<br>'high tech" boats.
<br>
<br>In this case it is a name to set 16ft boats of higher performance apart from the rest.
<br>
<br>My concer regarding the min weight is that you create an arms race that very few can afford to participate in. (Not much point being the only F16HT on the water.) Even the A class has a min weight to prevent this type of thing.
<br>
<br>I think 100kg is a reasonable weight considering the boat may need to take the loads of being sailed 2 up with a jib and spinnaker in addition to the main.
<br>The A class has a min of 75kg and does not have to take the loading that comes from the extra crew, spinnaker and jib.
<br>
<br>As far as a "solid wing mast". Appart from several C class cats built specifically for the "Little Americas Cup".
<br> Bob Forbes had one built back in the 80's for a NACRA after seeing Wild Turkey "run away and hide" in the US 18sq championships. They are the only two that I know of outside the "LAC". Well this didn't take off in the 80's and I don't see why it would do any better now. Allowing this is not a good way to get a 16ft Formula off the ground.
<br>
<br>The idea is to create a Formula Class for the 16ft boats that are capable of competing against F18 boats on a boat for boat basis.
<br>
<br>I think this is a worthwhile objective and the rules that are finally decided upon should be considered in this context.
<br>
<br>This is just the way I see it.<br><br>


I know that the voices in my head aint real,
but they have some pretty good ideas.
There is no such thing as a quick fix and I've never had free lunch!

Steward [Re: Stewart] #683
07/17/01 04:57 AM
07/17/01 04:57 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
Steward.
<br>
<br>Going back in September to do some more skiff sailing (also 49-er) in Greece. I've got a dedicated and almost fanatical crew; just what you want on a skiff hey.
<br>
<br>Anyway with respect to the points you raise.
<br>
<br>>I would prefer to see as few restrictions as possible..
<br>
<br>This is also the intend of the F16 HT group, however I think that the views differ on what is poossible and what isn't. Phill is right in his comment that this is intended to start a viable class. This will surely limit All-Out High Tech approach. That approach is left to the truelly Open class. Why deregulated everything but still fix a length of 16 foot ? Wouldn't 20 foot and light weight be even more high tech (M20 ?). Where must the boundery be drawn. It is also the intend of the F16 HT to present a good alternative to the other classes with respect to money. The BIM 16 can in EU be bought for 40 % of a new F18 and both boats perform the same ! This is also High Tech, getting the maximum out of a limited boxrule including cost to performance ratio.
<br>
<br>>Max length
<br>
<br>This is a necessacity to be able to form a class of equally performing boats. Even the small boat development classes of all time 18 foot skiffs and A-cats have opted for a few restrictions. This is also done to stimulate development. Personally I believe that Technology developped faster when more people are capable of participating. No -restrictions will stiffle small improvements for the big bucks guys will just overpower all smaller improvements by entering with a all carbon and disposable boat.
<br>
<br>
<br>> max width
<br>
<br>Is NOT regulated. Boat can be a wide as you want too as long as it is trailorable. The 16 foot boats will never reach this 2,55 meter width however for this would imply more power in the boat that the 16 foot hull length can ever prevent from pitchpoling. The optimal ratio between width and length probably is less. Otherwise the Taipan and Bim would have been made wider.
<br>
<br>> then either max mast height
<br>
<br>This is also NOT regulated. Same reasoning as with boat width. Ratio sailarea to mastlength is fixed via the rated sailarea formula which gives a predicting of truelly developped sailpower. All boats will therefor have the same thrust. Some may devellop this more efficiently than others. There is room for experimenting and development here.
<br>
<br>> or max luff length.
<br>
<br>Is NOT regulated. Reasoning as point above. Only genaker luff may be regulated but thuis point is still open for debate.
<br>
<br>>> or possibly max sail area..
<br>
<br>Is rgulated by ratio, see two points above.
<br>
<br>> allow single or multiple crews but if one nominates as a single (or double) the regatta must be sailed as that..
<br>
<br>I'm a little confused but think this is implemented as such in the (draft) rules we have right now. F16 HT regulated both 1-up as 2-up sailing and I feel the boat is too small for a crew of three.
<br>
<br>>>as for genacker. just rate the max luff length.
<br>
<br>Do you mean without specifying the maximum area ? What would you feel is a good lufflength to fix ?
<br>
<br>> I believe the 100 kg min is too high.. Firstly you wish a High Tech class then you suggest it should heavy enough to encourage be lowish tech construction.
<br>
<br>> Apart from the A-cat class and a few 13 to 14 foot cats, no cat has gone under 100 Kg's. Taking the A-cat as a lead :
<br>
<br>A-cat weight = 75 kg's
<br>Genaker setup = 6,5 kg's
<br>jib setup = 4,5 kg's
<br>
<br>minimum weight F16 HT without reinforcements = 86 kg's. An A-cat with a jib and genaker and double trapeze will be likely to break in the heavier airs, so I think that ONLY 14 kg's of reinforcements is not much to make it strong enough in 6 beaufort (25 knots) which will be the maximum windstrength for F16 HT races. I agree with Phill here, 100 kg's is needed and is already difficult to achive. In theory we could have gone a little lower say 95 kg's but then we would have no grandfather boats around which to start the class at all. Now, when no class than no-one will develop the 95 kg's F16 HT boat at all. So what is wisedom, we opted for the 100 kg's as a compromise, it is a few kg's lighter than the grandfather boats are and not to light to make them immediatly uncompetitive. And ofcourse 100 kg's is just about what can be reach by timber homebuilding.
<br>
<br>>. Seems a tad od.. Perhaps the class should be F16 MT where M is moderate ..
<br>
<br>Maybe, Still Steward I think that alot of your points are in fact left open in the F16 HT so it mght deserve the HT extention again. Even the 18 foot skiffs and A-cats are regulated to the same degree so it can;t be all bad, right ?
<br>
<br>>>If someone wishes to build a nomex carbon hull with M18 style rig then I would suggest its what we should allow..
<br>
<br>These will be one of boats just like the supercats. They are to extreme to create their own class. No class , means no buyers, no buyers means no development. This is the paradox that we are trying to overcome in the F16 HT. It may not be the ebst setup but it may well be the best setup we've got right now. Without it we keep getting the 150 kg's inter 17 and FX-one and 180 kg F18. The F16 HT will outsail these, isn't that pretty High Tech already for a smaller 16 foot boat !!
<br>
<br>>>What about a solid wing mast with a genacker? It would be HT surely.. Would this be legal?
<br>
<br>Probably not but we're still discussing it. Pesonally I feel that solid wingmasts are for millionairs and there are not enough sailing millionaires that are interested in small cats to base a class upon.
<br>
<br>But thanks for your reply Steward, I hope to see a reply on my comments of you.
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br>
<br>
<br><br><br>


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: Q 3 : What do you want covered in the rules ? [Re: Wouter] #684
07/17/01 03:05 PM
07/17/01 03:05 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 183
john p Offline
member
john p  Offline
member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 183
I think that the rules should be as simple as possible, I think that the main things to regulate should be weight, length, beam, mast height/main area (the rated sail area system seems fine to me) however I feel that a maximum mast length should be given, jib area, spinnaker area. I don't think materials should be regulated, The high tech part of the rule should be protected, it may be that carbon masts are more expensive than Aluminium at the moment but prices are coming down and soon all masts will be carbon, if you prohibit carbon now you will end up having to let it in later and that will make a lot of boats obsolete.
<br>
<br>look at the progress that the Aclass has made over other boats of its age, if you keep the regulations to a minimum then you allow manufacturers to make progress, this class by virtue of its name needs to be able to stay towards the forefront of developement, this does not mean that it will become an arms race, the weight we are proposing is relatively easy to build to without materials being too exotic.
<br>
<br>
<br> <br><br>


John Pierce

[email]stealthmarine@btinternet.com
/email]
F16 HT limitations [Re: Wouter] #685
07/17/01 04:52 PM
07/17/01 04:52 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Okay,
<br>
<br>My views on the topics are :
<br>
<br>I'm satisfied with the draft rules as they are being proposed now. When are they going to be put online in the broader sense ? I agree with Steward and John to stick to a limited set of restrictions and to allow as much development as possible. On the other hand I go with Phill in trying to prevent obvious dangers to the fletchling class. I feel that the rules may need reformulation but that the general idea is sound, but then again I'm not an experimenter in real life nor do I posses the knowledge and experience of some of you.
<br>
<br>On the carbon issue, I side with the people opting to allow carbon masts. I think that at least proven techology should be allowed under F16 HT. It should at least start out from the current "cutting edge" in catamaran technology. Carbon masts do definately fall under this describtion. It would be Medium Tech to not allow them (Steward). Having said this I will probably start out with a aluminium mast to cut down on the costs to get in the class. Then again BIM offers a great carbon package with their BIM 16 if their F16 HT price is in the same ball park then I won't hesitate a minute and go carbon. I also prefer carbon from a safety point of view.
<br>
<br>Do we know already wether 17 sq. mtr. is the maximum genaker area allowed under Texel for a 1-up boat.
<br>
<br>Anonimous4
<br>
<br><br><br>

Attached Files
772- (208 downloads)
Hello John, good to see that you've succeeded ... [Re: john p] #686
07/17/01 05:23 PM
07/17/01 05:23 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
Hello John, good to see that you've succeeded to log on.
<br>
<br>Welcome to the forumboard about F16 HT. I assume from you post that you've read the draft rules. Otherwise you wouldn't know what the : " rated sailarea" concept was. I saw the report on the Stealth performance with respect to F18's and international tornado on the web. Sounds very much like waht we're trying to achive.
<br>
<br>One question : why do you feel the need to regulate a maximum mast length. Would light air performance self- regulate the maximum mast length ? (I assume that brute sailarea is king in light air, a ver long mast would lack in these conditions)
<br>
<br>I assume that you're for allowing Carbon masts and that you are satisfied with 100 Kg's minimum weight for the 2-up configuration. Just right in between very high tech and low tech. Am I correct in these conclusions ?
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: Hello John, good to see that you've succeeded ... [Re: Wouter] #687
07/17/01 05:42 PM
07/17/01 05:42 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 183
john p Offline
member
john p  Offline
member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 183
Wouter
<br>
<br>generally speaking, high aspect ratio sails perform better in light airs, low aspect go well in the breeze, howevere i'm not too sure how the sail area reduces with mast length using the formula for rated sail area. But if you look at the A class they use longer masts than we are proposing with narrower boats and less weight to hold them up, I think you may find that if you don't limit mast size they may grow and grow as people develope the boat, personally I'd cap the length to stop obsolescence in this area.<br><br>

Attached Files
779- (195 downloads)

John Pierce

[email]stealthmarine@btinternet.com
/email]
Re: Hello John, good to see that you've succeeded ... [Re: Wouter] #688
07/17/01 05:51 PM
07/17/01 05:51 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 183
john p Offline
member
john p  Offline
member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 183
I agree with 100kgs min weight I think it is the right balance between high tech and practicality. <br><br>


John Pierce

[email]stealthmarine@btinternet.com
/email]
Reasons is ... and what is a good max size mast [Re: john p] #689
07/18/01 04:49 AM
07/18/01 04:49 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
>> howevere i'm not too sure how the sail area reduces with mast length using the formula for rated sail area
<br>
<br>Ohh, that is simple the formula is such that the benefit that you get from a longer luff mainsail is corrected by making the maximum allowed mainsail sailarea smaller.
<br>
<br>Go to the Texel rating calculator and ply with the number s of luff length and mainsail area. Try to keep the rated mainsail area equal or less than 13 sq. mtr. you'll see what i mean.\
<br>
<br>link :
<br>
<br>http://www.geocities.com/kustzeilen/excel/tr_calculator.xls " target="_blank"> http://www.geocities.com/kustzeilen/excel/tr_calculator.xls
<br>
<br>The rated sailarea formula is fix in its outcome and it has only two basic parameters which are linked together to create that fixed outcome. So if one increases the other must descrease.
<br>
<br>Okay, John what would you consider a good limit in mast height ?
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br><br><br>


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Extra comments [Re: Wouter] #690
07/18/01 04:59 AM
07/18/01 04:59 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
Example : Taipan 4.9 luff is 8,02 and mainsail including mast is 14,58 now when the mast is increased to allow for a 8,5 luff length the max allowed mainsail is decreased from 14,58 to 14,1 sq. mtr. or 0,48 sq.mtr . less.
<br>
<br>THe point you make about high and low aspect sail is that under the assumption that both sail areas are equal, becuase than I totally agree with you than even higher aspect sails are to be preferred in nearly all instances. But the rated mainsail area formula was proposed to counteract this without actually limitting boat parameters. The limitation is intended to be optimal performance itself. When you go to low aspect because you want a big sailarea than you'll loose out unacceptally in one set of conditions and when you go to high aspect and accept a small sailarea than you'll loose out in another set of conditions. This will make development self limiting without making the rules too strict. Do you think, with your experience<br><br>


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: Extra comments [Re: Wouter] #691
07/19/01 05:32 AM
07/19/01 05:32 AM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 183
john p Offline
member
john p  Offline
member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 183
Wouter, I agree I thimk that this will become self limiting, although it possibly gives a vast range of sail/mast combinations, bearing in mind with the longer mast you can have a longer spinnaker luff length.
<br>
<br>I think you may end up with a bit of an arms race, certainly in the beginning, up untill the point where developement of the boats finds the 'self limit'. the cost of this will be bourne by the folk who end up with obsolete kit.
<br>
<br>Personally I would fix the mast length (8.5m) seems about right, then at least there is only sail developement to pay for, and sails are a consumable item anyway, a boat owner would hope that their mast would last the life of the boat.
<br>
<br>On another issue I have been running some figures through the texel and isaf handicap formulae: to get a 16ft boat weighing 100kgs with a 17sqm kite to rate the same as an f18 you end up with main around 15.5 sqm (with mast) and jib about 3.2sqm.
<br>
<br>Now we sail the stealth with main 13.75 m and jib 4.9 m, not much difference in all up area, but the boat is only 2.29 m wide, increase the beam by 300mm and the righting moment goes up by about 13%, our crew weight is 148kgs (325lbs), I wonder if we may be designing a boat for lightweight crews, just a thought has anybody looked at this?<br><br>

Attached Files
810- (208 downloads)

John Pierce

[email]stealthmarine@btinternet.com
/email]
John's proposal of 8,5 m max mast will ban BIM 16 [Re: john p] #692
07/19/01 11:14 AM
07/19/01 11:14 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



John's proposal of 8,5 m max mast will ban BIM 16, of which the mast is 9 m. I would therefor push for a max set at 9 m if a max is set. Personally I would like to see no max and see the scene sort out what the most effective mastheight is. Just like was done in the A-cat cirquit. I feel that there could be an arms race like John predicts, but that the "cost to possible gain" is such that the impact is very limited due to the workings of the Rated Sail Area formula. I feel that the first bucks will be spend on getting a perfect 100 kg platform before any money is spend on optimizing mastheight. The gains with respect to the weight savings are clear and well defined; the same can not be said about the mastheight. In other words, I feel that designers will be hesitant to spend alot of money on a "maybe" gain that may well not be worth the money at all. This should be enough to stop an uncontrolled arms race and on the other hand open the door enough for controlled development.
<br>
<br>In summary, my answers :
<br>
<br>* I opt for letting the Rated Sail Area formula regulate mastheight.
<br>
<br>* If mastheight is limited than at least at 9 m in order to include BIM 16 and to have some room for optimizing the rig and genaker.
<br>
<br>Anonimous4
<br>
<br><br><br>

Attached Files
822- (198 downloads)
Re: Extra comments [Re: john p] #693
07/19/01 06:27 PM
07/19/01 06:27 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
John,
<br>
<br>>> bearing in mind with the longer mast you can have a longer spinnaker luff length.
<br>
<br>While Thinking about your comment I'm inclined to risk it on the mast heigth and to fix the draw of the genaker as Steward proposed. This will defuse the biggest danger (genaker luff length) and satisfy the wish of having as little restrictions as possible as to allow for development.
<br>
<br>Somehow I don't fear an arms race on mast height. Only experimenting to proof the validity of the rated mainsail area formula will show wether an arms race is really to be feared.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Personally I would fix the mast length (8.5m) seems about right, then at least there is only sail developement to pay for, and sails are a consumable item anyway, a boat owner >>would hope that their mast would last the life of the boat.
<br>
<br>As remarked by a gorupmember , this will put BIM out of the F16HT. How high isnthe Stealth mast ? For the Taipan and BIM are quite close to one another.
<br>
<br>>>On another issue I have been running some figures through the texel and isaf handicap formulae: to get a 16ft boat weighing 100kgs with a 17sqm kite to rate the same as an f18 you end up with main around 15.5 sqm (with mast) and >>jib about 3.2sqm.
<br>
<br>Do you have the ISAF formulae ?!? Can you send them to me please. I've been trying to get them but no-one has responded to my e-mails yet. You don't have the FFV formulae as well do you ?
<br>
<br>BTW , you've used the 8.5 mast = 8 m luff in the formulae
<br>
<br>Texel gives 14,85 sq.mtr. by 8 m luff and 3,35 by 4,7 m luff
<br>Anyhow, It would very much like to fo the check calculation in ISAF or FFV too.
<br>
<br>>>Now we sail the stealth with main 13.75 m and jib 4.9 m, not much difference in all up area, but the boat is only 2.29 m wide, increase the beam by 300mm and the righting moment goes up by about 13%, our crew weight is 148kgs (325lbs), I wonder if we may be designing a boat for lightweight crews, just a thought has anybody looked at this?
<br>
<br>I'm confused by what you say in your last sentence. Can you clarify please.
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br><br><br>


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: Extra comments [Re: Wouter] #694
07/20/01 12:55 PM
07/20/01 12:55 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 183
john p Offline
member
john p  Offline
member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 183
If a mast limit is set it should take account of the existing boats, i.e. set it to the length of the longest mast. The Stealth has 8.4m mast
<br>
<br>My comments on the weight carrying ability are that it seems to me that f16ht will end up with similar sail area to our Stealth R for which a crew weight of around 145kg is best. f16ht will be a foot wider that the Stealth so it should need less weight to keep it upright. <br><br>

Attached Files
851- (216 downloads)

John Pierce

[email]stealthmarine@btinternet.com
/email]
Alot of math, here goes ! [Re: john p] #695
07/20/01 03:59 PM
07/20/01 03:59 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
John,
<br>
<br>>>If a mast limit is set it should take account of the existing boats, i.e. set it to the length of the longest mast. The Stealth has 8.4m mast
<br>
<br>Thank you, I will update the webpage with this info. I agree with you on your last comment. I can live with 9 meters max. For I actually doubt wether higher masts on 16 foot cats are practical if even optimal. I really don't think that there is enough hull length to prevent a higher masted F16HT from pitchpoling. So the limit of 9 m. sounds fine to me. Anybody got objections ?
<br>
<br>>> My comments on the weight carrying ability are that it seems to me that f16ht will end up with similar sail area to our Stealth R for which a crew weight of around 145kg is best. f16ht will be a foot wider that the Stealth so it should need less weight to keep it upright.
<br>
<br>Yes, but we'll hurt the light crews in their jib area when going upwind. Going downwind you don't need the width. But your right, the Stealth sailarea are quite close to a viable F16HT implementation. And yes, the Stealth will prefer lighter crews. The Taipan 4.9 will prefer the heavier cews with its higher mast and larger sail area and less weight. And this is good because than each boat takes care of a particular spectrum of the weight range. If the question is if the F16HT will be a boat for light crews ? I think not for the rule framework is designed around 150 kg's creweight with a 10 kg margin up and down. So the competitive range will be 140 kg's to 160 kg's or "guy with girlfriend" to "two guys", this seems to be a good medium range to me. And ofcourse it is WAY faster than any other 16 foot class and several of the 18 foot classes around. Not bad with on average 150 kg's on board.
<br>
<br>I did some mpre math on the Stealth now I know that the mast is 8,4 mtr.
<br>
<br>- This should alow the luff to increase to 8 mtr.
<br>- Mainsail can be kept at same area
<br>- jib goes to up (or down) to 4 sq.mtr with a luff of 5 mtr. or longer (down to genaker boom)
<br>- weight stays at 117 kg's
<br>
<br>This results in TR going from 106,83 to 104,73 and the need for a heavier crew or wider platform (from 2,29 to 2,38mtr.) Now still 1,73 points to go :
<br>
<br>This can be achieved by
<br>
<br>- Losing 12 kg's somehow (sailing with a crew of 138 kg's)
<br>
<br>- 0,3 sq. mtr extra mainsail with ewxtra luff length and losing 7 kg's somewhere (crew of 143 kg's, getting nearer to your 145 ideal weigth) and going to 2,43 width, all still very well within F16HT framework
<br>
<br>-Or the best of all. Go to jibsize of 4,25 (max under F16HT) with a luff length of 5 mtr. or more (going down to genaker pole), increase luff main to 8 mtr. without adding area, loose 9 kg's somewhere (5 kg on crew arriving at tyhe optimal 145 kg's and 4 kg's on boat) and boat width stays the same. Now you're right smack at TR 103,01 and everything is at 83 % (drag and sailpower) And Stealth is the most equal to F18 of all the boats. But with a better genaker luff length than F18 so it will smoke F18's on a regular basis. No big spending involved for we can keep the mast and 4 kg's weight saving on the boat should be possible with simple mean (rudderstocks ?).
<br>
<br>O BTW I used Texel measurement data and it gave Stealth at 117 kg's and main at 14,19 sq. mtr. is this true ?
<br>
<br>For the 83 % discussion go to :
<br>
<br>http://www.geocities.com/F16HTclass/F16HT_to_F18_equality.html
<br>
<br>Do you think that this can be done without upsetting the original Stealth boat balance ?
<br>
<br>Wouter.
<br>
<br>
<br><br><br>


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: Q 3 : What do you want covered in the rules ? [Re: Wouter] #696
07/21/01 04:05 PM
07/21/01 04:05 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 67
Netherlands
geert Offline
journeyman
geert  Offline
journeyman

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 67
Netherlands
Wouter,
<br>
<br>I'd like to see as little restrictions as possible, but still trying to avoid making the class too expensive.
<br>
<br>Beam: max. 2.5 mtr;
<br>Almost everywhere trailarable, and not a real limit.
<br>
<br>Carbon mast: allowed;
<br>For ease of righting, handling on the beach. About cost, I think if we set the minimum total weight not too low, anyone can still be competitive, as taipan's with aluminium mast's are already quite light. It just helps to get more different boats into the class. (also the ones who can't achieve the min. weight with an aluminium mast)
<br>
<br>Spi: fixed max sail area between 17 and 21 m^2 (21 is max. according texel rating rule)
<br>I'd like also see a fixed luff length, to be calculated but:
<br>Make it as long as possible, just avoid the extremes, I'm a bit afraid of "masthead" spi's (more prone to breakage?), or say that the attachment of the spi must be at least 0.5 mtr down the top of the mast.
<br>
<br>Pole length: Like Formula18/Isaf rating/Texel rating: may not be longer than the longest distance between the fixing point on mast or mastbeam and the theoretical uttermost end of the boat, + 80 cm
<br>
<br>
<br>Minimum weight (2-up): 105 or 110 kg (including spi)
<br>Although I like light boats, I think it's not reasonable to go lower than this; it would make all existing boats already obsolete.
<br>For example:
<br>
<br>The Taipan is about 105kg, add 6 kg for the spi (it won't be much less) and it's 111 kg.
<br>The Stealth: 109 kg + 6kg= 115 kg
<br>Bim16 110kg (measurement in Holland) + 6kg =116kg
<br>
<br>And these are already the lightest boats around.
<br>
<br>Maximum length: 5.03m (this just includes the stealth)
<br>
<br>Sail area:
<br>For what kind of calculating for the Jib; I'll leave it up to you, but if you want to calculate, I think it's better to take the (max) luff lengths for main and jib, and not set a max mast length.
<br>I also like the idea to take a "rated" sail area; this also limits the need for a very high aspect-ratio sail (and thus a very long mast)
<br>This formula's are the same in Isaf and Texel rating, and are public, so everyone can see what the effects are.
<br>
<br>Geert
<br><br><br>

Attached Files
875- (204 downloads)
Welcome on the F16 HP ! forum Geert. [Re: geert] #697
07/21/01 05:46 PM
07/21/01 05:46 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
Geert,
<br>
<br>Welcome, this forum is working out isn't. The usage of this new media would justify the HT extension just a bit, don't you think. But than again the number of views and posts would also qualify it as High Performance ! =)
<br>
<br>Okay, you comments are noted in the poll. Let me react to a few points you've raised.
<br>
<br>>>I'd like to see as little restrictions as possible, but still trying to avoid making the class too expensive.
<br>
<br>I'm with you here all the way and I think that all of the 10+ group members are.
<br>
<br>>>Beam: max. 2.5 mtr;
<br>>>Almost everywhere trailarable, and not a real limit.
<br>
<br>Noted, and agree ; especially with the last bit. If it was needed than the Isotope, BIM, Stealth and Taipan would have been wider than 2,24 ; 2,28 ; 2,29 ; 2,34 mtr. Raising mastheight from old height to 9 mtr. would only need 12,5 % ; 0 %; 7,1 % ; 5,9% extra width respectively resulting in : 2,52 ; 2,28 ;2,45 ; 2,48 mtr. This when crew is left at the often low intended crew weight. F16HP will however often be sailied with heavier crews of 150 kg's and more and THEY don't need this extra width.
<br>
<br>
<br>>> Carbon mast: allowed;
<br>For ease of righting, handling on the beach. About cost, I think if we set the minimum total weight not too low, anyone can still be competitive, as taipan's with aluminium mast's are already quite light. It just helps to get more different boats into the class. (also the ones who can't achieve the min. weight with an aluminium mast)
<br>
<br>
<br>Indeed, The heavier ones can buy in by going carbon. Personally I'm quite attracted by the propect of better sail control and depowering in combination with less pitching. F16HP will give a fast but controllable and smooth ride.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Spi: fixed max sail area between 17 and 21 m^2 (21 is max. according texel rating rule)
<br>I'd like also see a fixed luff length, to be calculated but:
<br>Make it as long as possible, just avoid the extremes, I'm a bit afraid of "masthead" spi's (more prone to breakage?), or say that the attachment of the spi must be at least 0.5 mtr down the top of the mast.
<br>
<br>
<br>I was pointed by I think John P. and Pieter Jan Dwarshuis to the fact that carbon mast could be easily made extra strong to take the extra genaker load. This would not help grandfather boats unless they get a carbon mast but it is masthead genakers are definately an option for the future. Personally I might rig my old P16 with a second hand spi and support my weakend old mast by two dyneema lines running from the sideshrouds pintles to the sailgroove at the hoist point. I'll be using a small diamter bungee cord to keep to line slack when putting on downhaul going upwind. This will almost completely cancel bending stresses and still not be in the way when trapezing etc. Isotope could do that too, the other grandfathered designs are well in the clear, I think.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Pole length: Like Formula18/Isaf rating/Texel rating: may not be longer than the longest distance between the fixing point on mast or mastbeam and the theoretical uttermost end of the boat, + 80 cm
<br>
<br>
<br>Yep, agreed and so do the others, some want to go shorter and that is ofcourse allowed under this rule.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Minimum weight (2-up): 105 or 110 kg (including spi)
<br>Although I like light boats, I think it's not reasonable to go lower than this; it would make all existing boats already obsolete.
<br>
<br>
<br>Ehh, not really for F16 HP takes Overall weight , including crew, into account. Having a heavier boat can be largely corrected by sailing with a lighter than 150 kg crew. It will not be perfect but than only Isotope is somewhat heavy. Both Phill and I think Boyer too and not to forget John P. have stated now and in the past that 16 ft. (timber) boats could reach 100 kg's safely. This will push for some light development in this direction though, I'll admit to that. I consider it a provision for the future. and Ofcourse the 83 % rule only works at exactly 99,25 kg's (say 100 kg) and not 110 kg.
<br>
<br>>>For example:
<br>The Taipan is about 105kg, add 6 kg for the spi (it won't be much less) and it's 111 kg.
<br>The Stealth: 109 kg + 6kg= 115 kg
<br>Bim16 110kg (measurement in Holland) + 6kg =116kg
<br>And these are already the lightest boats around.
<br>
<br>Well, your numbers are correct ofcourse BUT (sorry) we must allow a carbon mast on the Taipan 4.9 for example, ergo - 4 kg's (maurizio old forum 3 days ago). Than Phill has homemade full carbon rudderstocks, ergo another 1,0 kg's and rudders/boards ! again -4 kg's. Homemade Taipan carbon boom and genaker pole, - 2 kg, dyneema trapeze wires and pole wires (work great on my boat), - 2 kg and we're already at -13,0 kg's So a F16 HP taipan 4.9 of your 111 kg's - 13kg = 98 kg's. Ohh, ... ehh, now lets say I overestimated by 2 kg's ... and Hoppa 100 kg's (Teasing a bit, sorry =) )
<br>
<br>Hell, I know a homebuilder that weighted the base sheets of ply before buying and selected the lightest ones and won a 2.4 kg's that way !
<br>
<br>I don't know about how far the BIM can go or the Stealth because I know the Taipan much better, But if Petrucci builds A-cats at 75 kg's than he must be able to produce his Bim at the advertized weight of 95 kg's even though the 110 kg's found at Texel is without a doubt correct.
<br>
<br>My point is that 100 kg's is "achieveable by practical means" as John P. himself put it. (e-mail or post, I forgot).
<br>
<br>But you do have a point. Taipan is base at 102 (class rules) and can kept at that weight by leaving class complience by going carbon mast and boom when adding a gen. of 6 kg's
<br>
<br>Still I think that the transition to 100 kg's will take a few years and that is enough time for the class and grandfathered boats to slowly adjust to this weight.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Maximum length: 5.03m (this just includes the stealth)
<br>
<br>Yes, I'm strongly apposed to that, Doing this will mean that all new boats will be build to 5,029 mtr. Thus giving the other grandfathered an extra hit lengthwise and genakerslot wise and the already were at 4,95 mtr. I must remain as neutral as possible in these F16HP discussions but I really want to keep the max = 5 mtr + margin of building error and dispensate the Stealth design for its non complience to the length rule under the condition that any newly designed stealth hull is 5 mtr or less.
<br>
<br>>> Sail area:
<br>For what kind of calculating for the Jib; I'll leave it up to you, but if you want to calculate, I think it's better to take the (max) luff lengths for main and jib, and not set a max mast length.
<br>I also like the idea to take a "rated" sail area; this also limits the need for a very high aspect-ratio sail (and thus a very long mast)
<br>This formula's are the same in Isaf and Texel rating, and are public, so everyone can see what the effects are.
<br>
<br>Yes, I'm investigating ISAF for this may rate daggerboards and genaker size.
<br>
<br>Greetings,
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br>
<br>Geert
<br>
<br><br><br>


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Geert are you for or against limiting mast at 9 m? [Re: geert] #698
07/21/01 05:48 PM
07/21/01 05:48 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
Because you said :
<br>
<br>I'd like to see as little restrictions as possible, but still trying to avoid making the class too expensive.
<br>
<br><br><br>


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: Q 3 : What do you want covered in the rules ? [Re: geert] #699
07/22/01 12:34 AM
07/22/01 12:34 AM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
Stewart Offline
old hand
Stewart  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
just a note.. Jim Boyer has stated in the past his boats are well made but "rugged" in construction.. Even his fantastic Auscat is probably over built in some respects..
<br>AHPC uses foam core (nomex is lighter) and wet layup (prepreg is lighter) with Al spars and beams.. Lets not forget someone will be bringing out PBO honeycomb cores..
<br>So if good boat building can produce an "A" at 75 kg without HT construction I dont see why the other A class builders and professional yards cant product a 16 at under 100 kg..
<br>
<br>The good am builder such as Phil should also squeak in a combo.. Given a set of female molds I would attempt a new 16.. I do know my designer is itching to have a crack at a cat..
<br>
<br>Just weighed my home built 11 foot moth hull 7.9 kgs painted.. Now how does one keep these things upright?????...Anyone considering a 11 foot cat class.. Though Im told the foils make these things more stable..Otherwise Im going to add a second hull!!!
<br>
<br>Stewart the drowned rat.. (who now owns a boat yard)<br><br>

Attached Files
885- (165 downloads)
Re: Welcome on the F16 HP ! forum Geert. [Re: Wouter] #700
07/22/01 12:41 AM
07/22/01 12:41 AM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
Stewart Offline
old hand
Stewart  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
W,
<br>how does the rating go if someone wishes to sail two up with main only? and a ganacker for downhill?
<br>Can this be accomidated inside the rules?<br><br>

Attached Files
886- (157 downloads)
F16HP cat rigged + gen 2-up ratings. [Re: Stewart] #701
07/22/01 01:51 AM
07/22/01 01:51 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
hear goes
<br>
<br>Solo cat rigged genaker = 99,99 = 100 and is part of F16HP, called 1-up
<br>
<br>crew with cat rigged genaker = 112,64 = 113 (2-up)
<br>
<br>I feel boats are a little faster than this setup for Texel does weight jib rather heavy because of downwind boost this is now given by genaker so hit of leaving the jib should be smaller. Still the cat rigged 2-up should have trouble at keeping up with F16HP (103) with jibs at TR = 113-something.
<br>
<br>And especially take a hit on (long) reaches (distance races)
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Rest of answer, sorry [Re: Wouter] #702
07/22/01 02:00 AM
07/22/01 02:00 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
And cat rigged 2-up is not ppart of the F16HP rules now, however all you'll be doing is sailing the 1-up configuration that IS regulated under F16HP with a crew of two. It should therefor not be problem at all integrating this devision into F16 HP later when there is a need to do so. There is /was a poll on this forum wether we should persue this now and the most person asnwered "NO" that is why it isn't part of rules nw because I have doubts wether it is faster than a high aspect jibbed F16HP combined with the fact that jib adds extra workload to crew descriminating more on haNDLING THAN on my boat is btter than yours and ofcourse F18 equality. Later when the class is bigger we maybe can go past F18. The boats have the potential to do so.
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br>
<br><br><br>


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Attempt a new 16 ft cat ? [Re: Stewart] #703
07/22/01 02:09 AM
07/22/01 02:09 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
Well, the same comment was heard from a other F16HP groupmember and I believe his seriously thinking about it given that this class gets going. With you and your sailing maker it makes two. Hopefully Favre (Ventilo) who is already designing a new 16 footer falls under the F16HP rules and we'll have three new boat combined with 4 grandfathered boats. Quites and instantanious formula class !!
<br>
<br>Do you think your designer could be tempted at a F16HP ? I mean being it is still at a 100 kg and all ? Still would be the lightest 2-up cat around ! and have the smallest wetted surface of all as a result.
<br>
<br>If you interested in 1-up genakering the F16HP (with a gen of 17 sq. mtr !!! ) Than maybe you should contact Phill in time for it loks like more aussies are going that way.,
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: Attempt a new 16 ft cat ? [Re: Wouter] #704
07/22/01 03:26 AM
07/22/01 03:26 AM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
Stewart Offline
old hand
Stewart  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
just a thought.. rather than have a fixed weight .. what about having a floating boat/hull/platform weight.. ie start with a set limit.. 100 kg or whatever.. then have the clause..
<br>all boats at the "worlds" are weighed (as they need to be anyway) without correctors..
<br>the average then becomes the new weight for 2 or 3 years.. provision may be placed that hull weigh may only drop by 2 kgs per 2 or whatever set time.. This allows for the gradual reduction in class weight without obsoleteing the fleet overnight.. a mix of development and restraint .. <br><br>

Attached Files
891- (172 downloads)
Re: Rest of answer, sorry [Re: Wouter] #705
07/22/01 03:37 AM
07/22/01 03:37 AM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
Stewart Offline
old hand
Stewart  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
seems strange..
<br>if the cat rigged two up are slower than the sloop rigged then shouldnt be a problem.. Unless its the "look" of the class your trying to create.. If so we should all go off and purchase hobie 16s..
<br>
<br>as for the less work agrument.. One could use this to ban rachet blocks pulleys ect..
<br><br><br>

Attached Files
892- (166 downloads)
Re: Attempt a new 16 ft cat ? [Re: Wouter] #706
07/22/01 03:55 AM
07/22/01 03:55 AM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
Stewart Offline
old hand
Stewart  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
17 sq meters.. I sail on a single traped Javelin class skiff http://www.javelins.org which has a 20-23 sq meter kite.. That means one trap on a width of 1727 mm (5'8 in the old terms)..Some of the larger skippers (90-105 kg) solo their Javs and use the kites up to 15 knots.. I will measure up the luff this week to see what its like.. But the prod sticks out 1.8 meters from the stem.. The stick is shorter tho..
<br> 17 sq meters is what the 29er and cherubs use.. Both are kids classes..
<br>
<br>The International 14s have 33 m2 kites dont even ask about 12s and 18teens.. Prods on a 14 are 2.7 meters long.. 12s have 3.3 plus meter poles..
<br>yes I understand the differences in a skiff kite vs a cat kite.. Really wild are the new I14s on foils.. <br><br>

Attached Files
893- (181 downloads)
Re: Welcome on the F16 HP ! forum Geert. [Re: Wouter] #707
07/22/01 03:00 PM
07/22/01 03:00 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 67
Netherlands
geert Offline
journeyman
geert  Offline
journeyman

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 67
Netherlands
Wouter,
<br>
<br>Thanks for answering that quickly, I agree with your answers, except one point, the weight issue.
<br>
<br>First Your calculation of a extra light Taipan, I think it’s quite a bit too enthusiastic calculated, let’s go to the details:
<br>
<br>Carbon mast -4 kg: Then you have a real light carbon mast, but ok.
<br>
<br>Carbon Rudderstock/rudder/boards -5kg: I don’t think you can get this reduction.
<br>I don’t have the message anymore from Phil, I hope I remember it well
<br> I once read the article about the paper tiger carbon boards, very nice indeed, but the difference is not that big.
<br>The boards had a smaller section as for a taipan; as I calculate it for the same section as a taipan, the reduction would be about 15%;
<br>Please correct me if I’m wrong at this, Phil will know it for sure.
<br>
<br>My boards are 1.9 and 2kg; so that gives a reduction of 0.5kg total.
<br>For the rudders/stocks: they also are already light at 5kg total, but let’s say You can get 1.5 kg reduction with carbon
<br>
<br>Spi pole + Boom –2kg:
<br>My Boom=1.44kg, Suppose in carbon it’s 70% of it’s weigh, and you get a reduction from 0,432kg.
<br>Pole: 70% of 2.5kg gives 0.75 kg
<br>
<br>Dynema trapeze/pole wires –2kg:
<br>My total shrouds, including trapezes wires are just 2.5 kg! So I don’t think you can get more than 0.5 kg.
<br>
<br>This gives a total reduction of about 7.5 kg,
<br>This means 111-7.5=103.5 kg.
<br>
<br>So still 3.5 kg’s overweight.
<br>
<br>That’s just my Taipan, I think we also have to ask John Pierce (Stealth), as designer maybe he can tell if a stealth for example could be brought at 100kg, including spi. (=15kg reduction, and the stealth has already a carbon mast.
<br>I suppose it will be very hard to achieve this.
<br>
<br>If this is true, 2 boats are already obsolete, at least the stealth, and for the taipan you’ll have to invest quite a bit..
<br>
<br>I’d also like to hear John’s opinion, for me I think 100kg, excluding spi or 105 kg with spi would be the absolute minimum.
<br>
<br>Keep on the good work,
<br>
<br>Geert
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br><br>

Attached Files
897- (172 downloads)
Humm, I'm going to give a short reality check [Re: Stewart] #708
07/22/01 03:47 PM
07/22/01 03:47 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
>> I will measure up the luff this week to see what its like.. But the prod sticks out 1.8 meters from the stem.. The stick is shorter tho..
<br>
<br>If you could that ! Thanks
<br>
<br>
<br>>>17 sq meters is what the 29er and cherubs use.. Both are kids classes..
<br>
<br>Huh, Taken from Bethwaite.com (The designer !) and ovingtonboats.co.uk (licenced builder and dealor)
<br>
<br>(Source data at end of post)
<br>
<br>Bethwait 29-er (designer) 9 sq.mtr. at 85 kgs
<br>Ovington 29-er(builder/dealor) 15 sq.mtr at 70 kgs
<br>Ideal weight 110kg to 145 kg
<br>
<br>Bethwait 49-er (designer) 15,3 sq.mtr. at 94 kgs
<br>Ovington 49-er(builder/dealor) 38 sq.mtr at 70 kgs
<br>Ideal weight 145 kg to 175 kg
<br>
<br>First I see a bad case of inconsistancy, almost like nacra. And they call this one design. You probably can explain the weight difference but how do you go from 15 to 38 sq. mtr. The keyboards keys are not even near.
<br>
<br>And than, Sorry Steward but your asking for it, and than these are the heaviest kiddies I ever saw. You must grow them usage in Aussie land. And as far as I known the Javelin is rated slower under Victoria than the 49-er and about the same as 29-er.
<br>
<br>Now I also looked up some other skiff and Musto goes 15 sq.mtr. and is almost a perfect square. The lasers don't go beyond 15 sq.mtr. 2-up.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>The International 14s have 33 m2 kites dont even ask about 12s and 18teens.. Prods on a 14 are 2.7 meters long.. 12s have 3.3 plus meter poles..
<br>
<br>And the designer himself of some of the most succesful 18 ft skiffs has said that he found that area is rather unimportant with respect to luff length. He found hardly any speed difference in flying a small area kite or a big one as long as the luff lengths were the same. And thus far the Victoria rating doesn't show skiff to be faster than cats (exception 18 ft skiff, but these are about 6 mtr. wide ?)
<br>
<br>In greece all skiff were doing great in no air to light medium air. after aal skiffs including the kiddy size genny skiffs went swimming.
<br>
<br>And on top of that 49-er is 94 kg's ! not far from 100kg F16 HP. Seems to me that those 12' , 14's and 16' are light weather boats or that sailing them is more about keeping it up than sailing fast. Sorry again. But that is what the figures tell me and past experiences have shown to be true.
<br>
<br>>>yes I understand the differences in a skiff kite vs a cat kite.. Really wild are the new I14s on foils..
<br>
<br>I bet they are !
<br>
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br>Source data :
<br>
<br> Designer: Julian Bethwaite
<br>29-er
<br> Length: 4.45m
<br> Beam: 1.77m
<br> Weight rigged: 85kg
<br>Sail Area Mainsail 7.5sq m
<br> Jib 5sq m
<br> Spinnaker 9sq m
<br> Approximate time to rig: 15mins
<br>Recommended combined crew weight is 110kg to 145kg and suitable for both male and female sailors.
<br>
<br>
<br>Ovington builder/dealor
<br>Overall Length 4.45 m
<br>Waterline Length 4.24 m
<br>Beam 1.77 m
<br>Fitted Hull Weight 70 kg
<br>Mast Height above sheerline 6.25 m
<br>Main & Foresail 12.5 sq.m
<br>Asymmetric Spinnaker 15 sq.m
<br>Designer Julian Bethwaite
<br>
<br>
<br>49-er
<br>
<br> Length: 4.99m
<br> Beam, hull: 1.69m
<br> Beam, wings: 2.9m
<br> Hull weight bare: 61kg
<br> Hull weight with wings and fittings: 94kg
<br> Draft, max: 1.5m
<br> Mast, above sheer: 8.5m
<br> Spin. Pole extended: 1.7m
<br>Sail Area Olympic Rig Mainsail: 15sq m
<br> Jib: 6.2sq m
<br> Spinnaker: 15.3sq m
<br>Sail Area Sport Rig Mainsail: 12.75sq m
<br> Jib: 5.3sq m
<br> Spinnaker: 13sq m
<br> Approximate time to rig: 20mins
<br>Suitable for both men and women, the 49er offers fast, exciting sailing in a weight range extending from 145kg to 175kg (combined crew weight).
<br>
<br>Ovington boats builder/dealor
<br>Overall Length 4.99 m
<br>Beam 2.9 m
<br>Hull Weight 70 kg
<br>Main & Foresail 21.2 sq.m
<br>Asymmetric Spinnaker 38 sq.m
<br>Designer Julian Bethwaite
<br>
<br><br><br>


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: Rest of answer, sorry [Re: Stewart] #709
07/22/01 05:38 PM
07/22/01 05:38 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
>>seems strange..
<br>
<br>On the other hand I have no definate numerical proof of this, so I withdraw my statement.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>if the cat rigged two up are slower than the sloop rigged then shouldnt be a problem.. Unless its the "look" of the class your trying to create.. If so we should all go off and purchase hobie 16s..
<br>
<br>Indeed, but for now I have to let this go or it will spread my attention over to many seperate topics. Maybe for later ? The jib however is an important part of F16 HP 2-up it is used for equalization and to make the F16 HP very comparable to the F18 and iF20 so that handicap racing between these class will be very fair and dependable. Dropping this will in my opinion take away much of the class attractiveness. But It definately could be something for the future !
<br>
<br>>> as for the less work agrument.. One could use this to ban rachet blocks pulleys ect
<br>
<br>He, he, he , okay ! =)
<br>
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: Humm, I'm going to give a short reality check [Re: Wouter] #710
07/22/01 10:07 PM
07/22/01 10:07 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
Stewart Offline
old hand
Stewart  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
will come back to you with the luff length .. But to give you some idea.. the maststep is back from the stem 1.85 meters. Prod is 1.8 meters long and the stick is 6660 meters (for luff measurements)..
<br>
<br>As for your other arguements.. the Javelin and 29er are the same length.. But the 29er has less sail..Javelin has about 15 sq meters of working sail and a 22 sq meter kite.. The 29er and Cherub have approx 9 sq meters of working sail and both carry around 15 sq meters of kite..
<br>
<br> Hence the speed advantage to the Javelin over the 29er.... I believe the latest 29er VYC/NSWYC rating is 100 compared to the Javelins 96ish.. (about 2 rating points quicker than the 505 but this is before the larger kits was accepted by the 505s). The 49er is quicker but has a width advantage and has twin traps.. Its at the moment 3 rating points faster than the I14.. Given a few years myabe this will change..
<br>
<br>Bethwaite vs Olvington.. yeah well.. Monkey could never keep his facts straight..
<br>One 29er/49er web site shows the working sail area while the other gives the combined sail area.. Howevrer 49ers having only 15 sq meters of working sail I find unbelievable.. They would have about 18 at least.. Bethwaites site also give the bare hull weight the Oliv sites give sailing hull weight.. 49ers are NOT high tech.. Monkey likes to make money!!! Its quite a basic layup.. gell coat over epoxy and glass over corecell.. Carbon is only used in the mast step and rigging load areas.. These hulls need to be made in areas where high tech isnt available..
<br>
<br> C&P from the Au Cherub web site
<br> Most Cherub sailors are aged between 16 and 28 as it is mainly an intermediate
<br> class. Most sailors come out of junior classes such as the Flying Ant, Flying 11 and
<br> the International Cadet as they find the Cherub is the only class that provides the high
<br> performance of a skiff class with the cost advantage of a restricted design. The social
<br> aspect of the class is also a bonus. The Cherub has a wide spectrum of weight
<br> carrying capacity , this ranges from the very light 110 kg combined crew weights to
<br> the heavies of around 150-160kgs. The 9th World Champions, Tony Dillon (skipper
<br> 73kg) and David Gibson (crew 85kg) who sailed Rocky and Bullwinkle, are the
<br> ultimate proof that the Cherub can be sailed successfully by heavy crews.
<br>
<br>The local 29er crews are all 13-16 years old.. They graduate to 49er when their dads can afford to fork out for one...
<br>
<br>Went swimming? Sheesh cant you guys sail?? 49ers & 14s are fully powered up at 8 knots dropping power at 15.. 12s are fully powered up around 5 knots.. Scary is watching a 12 dumping sail two on trap when the water is only just past glass.. Due to thier multiple rig setup they can carry power well into the 25+ knot brackets.. 18s ditto.. Remember 12 have 12 foot plus prods and a 30 foot mast with their light air rigs.. 18teens have had 18 foot plus prods and their number one mast is about 35 foot.. Not sure what the latest restrictions are on 18teen prods..
<br>
<br> Aussie and Kiwi kids are probably just better sailors thats all *winks*..
<br>
<br>
<br>But back to the 16hp.. The fleet I will probably be sailing against will be mixed bag of "A", Nacras & Tsports.. But if I can keep up with the As I will be happy..<br><br>

Re: Q 3 : What do you want covered in the rules ? [Re: Wouter] #711
07/23/01 04:03 AM
07/23/01 04:03 AM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
Stewart Offline
old hand
Stewart  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
one for you
<br>
<br>http://www.sailingsource.com/cherub/aero.htm<br><br>

Attached Files
905- (192 downloads)
Re: Geert are you for or against limiting mast at 9 m? [Re: Wouter] #712
07/23/01 02:25 PM
07/23/01 02:25 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 67
Netherlands
geert Offline
journeyman
geert  Offline
journeyman

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 67
Netherlands
Wouter,
<br>
<br>I think it's good to set a limit at 9 meter
<br>
<br>Geert<br><br>

Attached Files
928- (202 downloads)
My preliminary reaction to your weight point [Re: geert] #713
07/24/01 10:38 AM
07/24/01 10:38 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
Geert,
<br>
<br>>>Thanks for answering that quickly, I agree with your answers, except one point, the weight issue.
<br>
<br>Okay, well that leaves only one point to discuss further. I won't react as quickly this coming weeks however for I have visitors staying the week.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>First Your calculation of a extra light Taipan, I think it’s quite a bit too enthusiastic calculated, let’s go to the details:
<br>
<br>That is was, I admit that.
<br>
<br>**** Carbon mast -4 kg: (you agreed)
<br>
<br>****; as I calculate it for the same section as a taipan, the reduction would be about 15%; my boards are 1.9 and 2kg; so that gives a reduction of 0.5kg total. (Lets assume that your estimate is correct.)
<br>
<br>*** For the rudders/stocks: they also are already light at 5kg total, but let’s say You can get 1.5 kg reduction with carbon (I go with you again)
<br>
<br>**** Spi pole + Boom –2kg:
<br>My Boom=1.44kg, Suppose in carbon it’s 70% of it’s weigh, and you get a reduction from 0,432kg.
<br>Pole: 70% of 2.5kg gives 0.75 kg
<br>
<br>I would like to have the density of prepreg Carbon, but judging from my stunt kite carbon poles the carbon tudes are about 1/3 of alu wehn dimensions are the exactly the same including wall thickness.
<br>
<br>I would say boom and pole = reduction of 3,96 * 2/3 = 2,64 kgs or double your reduction. I'm quite sure but I will check my claim.
<br>
<br>**** Dynema trapeze/pole wires –2kg:
<br>My total shrouds, including trapezes wires are just 2.5 kg! So I don’t think you can get more than 0.5 kg.
<br>
<br>Ohh, believe me the reduction is that big. The Dogbones together are heavier than the 3 mm dyneema line and plastic handle bars. I could also replace my oringinal bungee cords 5mtr. in total of 5 mm diameter (needed to avoid slapping) by 3 mm bungees. Honestly, 2 kg on 2,5 maybe alot but 1,5 you get definately for the dyneema trapwires setup is less than 1 kgs in total. Try the dyneema, you love it. No slapping, no bungee cord pulling heavily on your dogbone, no wear on your sailspockets.
<br>
<br>>>This gives a total reduction of about 7.5 kg,
<br>>>This means 111-7.5=103.5 kg.
<br>
<br>I would like to adjust that by -2,5 kg's as discussed. resulting in a 101 kg Taipan F16 HP.
<br>
<br>Now, lets say that someone gets the bright idea of replacing his forebeam at the same time he buys the carbon mast. The profile is the same and he can easily ask for 8,5 + 2,5 mtr = 11 meter carbon mastsection with a reinforced lower 2,4 mtrs. He'll pay about the same in production cost just a little added cost due to more reasin and carbon and saw of the bottom 2,5 mtr to make it into his forebeam. Now he will have a below 100 kg's Taipan.
<br>
<br>So I think the point is not if this minimum weight could be achived be readily available means. I think this point is important.
<br>
<br>A professional builder like Boyer and BIM can do these adjustments without must effort. I think this setup is state of the art and should therefor be placed as such in the F16HP
<br>
<br>
<br>>> That’s just my Taipan, I think we also have to ask John Pierce (Stealth), as designer maybe he can tell if a stealth for example could be brought at 100kg, including spi. (=15kg reduction, and the stealth has already a carbon mast.
<br>I suppose it will be very hard to achieve this.
<br>
<br>
<br>And this is where you have a good point ! I see this a the only problem of the 100 kg's minimum weight. We
<br>'ll continue on this.
<br>
<br>
<br>I’d also like to hear John’s opinion, for me I think 100kg, excluding spi or 105 kg with spi would be the absolute minimum.
<br>
<br>OKay, Best is to get John P. opinion. I coute him before where he indicated that he thought 100 kg was resonable, but I don't know wether the Stealth could be made 100 kg's. MInd you the Stealth was designed have a optimal crewweight of 145 kg's so the Genaker equipement is already corrected by the 150 - 145 kg = 5 kg crewweight difference ! Spo overall over weightness now is 9 kg according to Texel measurement.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Keep on the good work,
<br>
<br>And the constructive discussion ! It helps the forming of the F17HP alot ! And yes I will continue the work. Hell, if this F16 HP takes off than I have a good mind of modifying my T to be a perfect F16 HP in order to function as an example.
<br>
<br>And thank you very much for contributing !
<br>
<br>Greetings
<br>Wouter
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br><br>

Attached Files
950- (185 downloads)

Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: My reaction to this discussion [Re: Wouter] #714
07/25/01 08:09 AM
07/25/01 08:09 AM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 344
Arkansas, USA
Kirt Offline
enthusiast
Kirt  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 344
Arkansas, USA
Sorry to have missed so much while out of town essentially the last three weeks.
<br>I know it's probably too "late" to vote but here are my thoughts-
<br>KISS- Keep It Simple Sailors! I think the simplest rules (ie. predominantly maximum and minimum measurements) are the best, but realize we need SOME restrictions to begin and maintain a viable class.
<br>Mast- Any material, max height 9 meters (perhaps we need a max girth also just to "fend off" any outrageous wingsails/solid sails?? I would put this measure quite large to allow some development however).
<br>Weight- I think 100 kgs. is acceptable right now- We could always do as the "A"'s do- Set the minimum weight for some period of time (say 5 years) then to be reviewed by the class (even though this is true, of course, for ALL the rules!).
<br>Beam- I think 2.4 meter is acceptable since it incorporates all the present boats but 2.5 meter would be the most I would go. I WOULD set a max beam measurement though (at least for the hulls/foils- If we allow racks, which is OK w/ me, then I think 2.4 meter is adequate for the hulls, racks could be any length then).
<br>Spinnaker pole- Material open, design open, max. extension (again, for now to get the class "off the ground" and allow sailmakers some limits to develop within) 0.8 meters forward of bows. No limit on height above water (it will sort out).
<br>Spinnakers- 17 sq. meter max, some max "draw height" but I would go for length UP the mast rather than "vertical height" since I feel this could be contentious and hard to "control" since mast rake will directly affect and length up the mast can be easily measured. Again, I think this will promote sailmaker interest/involvement in the class.
<br>Materials- open.
<br>Maximum length- 5.00 meters, with Stealth (and any other CURRENT designs we haven't met/don't know about already out there) "grandfathered" in. 5 meters is already MORE than 16 feet and includes all but the Stealth and if we start pushing it soon we'll just have a modified "A" class ala the M 18.
<br>Hydrofoils- We probably should address this since the "A" class just did- Don't know the outcome of that since voting is still open. While I think this would be "neat" and may in fact be the wave of the future (no pun intended) I am afraid it would lead to a bit of an "arms war" and would have "regional" effects in that certain venues/areas it may make a large positive difference while in others none so it might "fragment" the class nationally/internationally.
<br>One up/two up- We haven't REALLY addressed this BUT I think it's a boon to this class to KEEP this as an option for ALL boats "involved", this includes "new" designs. I'm not sure how to make sure this happens other than to specify all boats must be capable of carrying some minimum crew weight (140 kg?) and all must be "rightable" by 60 kg person w/o assistance (this to inspire confidence in sailing solo and developement/implementation of solo righting systems/boats).
<br>
<br>That's my thoughts-
<br>
<br>Kirt T 4.9 #159<br><br>Kirt Simmons
<br>Taipan #159, "A" cat US 48

Attached Files
1004- (213 downloads)

Kirt Simmons Taipan #159, "A" cat US 48
Re: My reaction to this discussion [Re: Kirt] #715
07/25/01 09:12 AM
07/25/01 09:12 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,449
P
phill Offline

veteran
phill  Offline

veteran
P

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,449
Kirt,
<br>
<br>I really like the idea of 2.4m beam and racks.
<br>
<br>Phill<br><br>

Attached Files
1005- (200 downloads)

I know that the voices in my head aint real,
but they have some pretty good ideas.
There is no such thing as a quick fix and I've never had free lunch!

Stealth weight [Re: Wouter] #716
07/27/01 03:16 AM
07/27/01 03:16 AM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 183
john p Offline
member
john p  Offline
member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 183
We believe we can reach the 100 kgs weight for production stealths, the boat was originally designed with no particular weight target as such we compromised in a few areas, main beam, current weight 7.5 kgs! (no dolphin striker), rear beam current weight 4.5 kgs, these were cheap available sections at the time, we also put coremat (instead of foam) in the floor of the hull to make the boat tougher when mishandled, I think just changing these bits of the boat alone will probably get us to the weight we are looking for.
<br>
<br>We seam to be moving towards agreement on most topics, to summarise it would appear that the framework will be something like this:
<br>
<br>Max length 5.00 m
<br>Max beam 2.5 m
<br>Max mast length 9.00
<br>Min weight 100 kgs
<br>Max spin 17 m (18sq m???)
<br>Max draw height on kite ? 8.5 m ??
<br>Rated main area (as per Wouters calcs
<br>Rated jib area (see above)
<br>
<br>Boats to rate the same as F18 (I think we need to pick a rating system to compare its a bit too open to make it compare on all systems, I vote we use texel this allows us 18sqm spin with no penalty over 17sq m it also allows any length of daggerboard whereas for ISAF you must put in the length and area for the boards.
<br>
<br><br><br>

Attached Files
1081- (201 downloads)

John Pierce

[email]stealthmarine@btinternet.com
/email]
spinnaker size [Re: john p] #717
07/27/01 03:54 AM
07/27/01 03:54 AM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 183
john p Offline
member
john p  Offline
member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 183
The texel formula for spinnakers works as follows,
<br>boats up to 16 ft length, max spin 18sqm
<br>boats 16 - 18 ft length, max spin 21 sq m
<br>boats 18 - 20 ft length, max spin 25 sq m
<br>
<br>f16hp will fall into the 2nd catagory so we can set spin up to 21 sq m without any change to handicap, we might as well do this, we currently sheet the spin just behind the shroud with a17.5 sqm spin which is fixed 7.35 m above mast footI dont think that the sheet posn would change much if the draw height went up by a metre.<br><br>

Attached Files
1082- (169 downloads)

John Pierce

[email]stealthmarine@btinternet.com
/email]
Re: spinnaker draw height [Re: john p] #718
07/27/01 07:34 AM
07/27/01 07:34 AM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 344
Arkansas, USA
Kirt Offline
enthusiast
Kirt  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 344
Arkansas, USA
John (and others?)-
<br>How comfortable do you feel just raising "draw height" on your current mast (which of course will also allow you to increase sail area)? Your post seems to imply it would be "no problem" to raise draw height on the Stealth by one meter and increase spinnaker size. At what point would you be worried that the (current) mast would not be able to reliably handle this?
<br>Or is it that you intend to produce new masts (longer also?) designed to handle these (IMO) greatly increased loads?
<br>Seems we may already be facing a bit of an "arms war"??
<br>
<br>Kirt<br><br>Kirt Simmons
<br>Taipan #159, "A" cat US 48

Attached Files
1083- (166 downloads)

Kirt Simmons Taipan #159, "A" cat US 48
Re: spinnaker draw height [Re: Kirt] #719
07/27/01 02:28 PM
07/27/01 02:28 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 183
john p Offline
member
john p  Offline
member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 183
I'll let you know on monday I just got a new 21 sq m spinnaker and it sets 300mm down from the top of the mast if it falls down Ill let you know, I dont think that the size of the spinnaker is important from a loading point of view, the platform will only take so much load from the top of the mast before it pitchpoles, the only difference with a bigger spinnaker is that this happens lower down the wind range. I am convinced that our mast will take this load, someone else allready tried it, but well just have to wait and see.<br><br>

Attached Files
1103- (175 downloads)

John Pierce

[email]stealthmarine@btinternet.com
/email]
Re: spinnaker draw height [Re: Kirt] #720
07/27/01 07:33 PM
07/27/01 07:33 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,449
P
phill Offline

veteran
phill  Offline

veteran
P

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,449
Kirt,
<br>I am concerned about the draw height.
<br>Would you mind telling me what draw height you are currently using.
<br>
<br>Personally I'd like to see the max draw height set at 7500mm
<br>up the mast from its base.
<br>It will be very hard to start up a class that breaks $3500 masts. (Which is what a rigged carbon mast would cost, the blank is at least $2700)
<br>
<br>It would provide good amunition for the major manufacturers to run down the fragile (making it expensive) F16HP.
<br>
<br>While performance is a main focus without durability you won't get many participants.
<br>
<br>Regards,
<br>Phill<br><br>

Attached Files
1118- (169 downloads)

I know that the voices in my head aint real,
but they have some pretty good ideas.
There is no such thing as a quick fix and I've never had free lunch!

Re: Stealth weight [Re: john p] #721
07/28/01 11:43 AM
07/28/01 11:43 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
>>We believe we can reach the 100 kgs weight for production stealths,
<br>
<br>This is great news ! I was a little bit anxious about the stealths weight. But this settles it I think. All the boats including genaker gear are between 100 kg's and 110kg's so I see no reason now to set a different minimum weight than 100 kg's. What do you think Geert ? Does this settle out discussion ?
<br>
<br>It was also assured to me that a homebuild Taipan could be build to 100 kg when modified here and there to take a carbon mast, carbon genaker pole and carbon beams. For a homebuilder all do-able. The carbon mast must be ordered ofcourse lets say that a blank carbo section = 2700 as phill indicated than going carbon will put 2700 - 1000 (alu) = 1700,- (NFL) = about us$700,- on the price of a boat. The sails etc will be different but just as cheap/expensive. So I think that is is payable too.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>We seam to be moving towards agreement on most topics, to summarise it would appear that the framework will be something like this:
<br>
<br>Yes, I think so too. Although I would like to run a few things passed you all.
<br>
<br>Max length 5.00 m (I agree)
<br>Max beam 2.5 m (F18 has 2,60 as max, more width more power in heavy air, do or don't?)
<br>Max mast length 9.00 (I agree)
<br>Min weight 100 kgs (Ohh yes, I agree)
<br>Max spin 17 m (18sq m???) (I like to move up to 83 % of 21 sq.mtr. = 17,5 rounded of, Do or Don't guys)
<br>Max draw height on kite ? 8.5 m ?? (I want to have same aspect ratio as F18, means less draw)
<br>
<br>Rated main area (as per Wouters calcs (I agree, ofcourse)
<br>Rated jib area (see above) (I agree again)
<br>
<br>
<br>>>>Boats to rate the same as F18 (I think we need to pick a rating system to compare its a bit too open to make it compare on all systems,
<br>
<br>
<br>I'm with you here, personally I like to opt for ISAF system. Name ISAF is better known in the world and allying ourself to this system will give us more credit and maybe help in getting support and recognition by ISAF in the future. I also think it is more fair to the F18's
<br>
<br>
<br>>>I vote we use texel this allows us 18sqm spin with no penalty over 17sq m it also allows any length of daggerboard
<br>
<br>I meet you halveway 17,5 sq.mtr. for I can argument mathem,atically that size is fair to the F18's. 18 sq.mtr. will look like we're trying to beat them by sneaky use of a loophole in a handicap system. Personally I'm all for more power and going faster but this is one thing again that could hamper the class.
<br>
<br>>>whereas for ISAF you must put in the length and area for the boards.
<br>
<br>True but these and all other non conformaties are corrected out in the jib area. So this is not really a big problem. with big boards you'll only loose 0,5 jib area or so 1/9 of max. that can be had on a F16HT.
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br><br>

Attached Files
1130- (171 downloads)

Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
I say go up too 17.5 sq.mtr. but not more/draw to. [Re: john p] #722
07/28/01 12:02 PM
07/28/01 12:02 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
83 % rule (or 91% rule same thing) would allow a fair to F18's genaker of 91,075% * 91,075% * 21= 82,946 % * 21 = 17,42 sq. mtr. rounded of to 17.5 sq.mtr.
<br>
<br>I can sell this size using math arguments. I can't do the same for 18 sq.mtr. let alone 21 sq.mtr. I'm also a little bit scared of being accused of using rating system loophole in by the other classes. I don't mind what everybody does under Texel, (Hell, I might well go 21 sq.mtr. myself just to annoy them) but from a official standpoint it is a bad decision.
<br>
<br>Keeping same aspect ratio would make the our case more convincing too.
<br>
<br>max up mast of F18 is 8150 mm
<br>max hieght mastfoot is 120 mm
<br>
<br>so max hoist F18 = 8150+120 = 8270 mm not including place of pole on beam
<br>
<br>91 % rule would give a F16HP hoist of 7532 mm let say 7530 mm from top of forebeam.
<br>
<br>together with a pole of about 91 % of the F18 would give a genaker of 83 % size (17.5 sq.mtr. ) with the same aspect ratio but with a 91 % lufflength still giving the F16HP an advantage. Making the F16HP 100 % equal in every respect to the F18. Excluding topspeed for now for I'm still working o the math for that.
<br>
<br>I know this is difficult to agree upon when we all want maximum performance but lets not forget that we'll need to actract other sailors to this class and F18 equality for less costs with a great solo option might just do that. Going off in hunt for 1 or 2 % percent more performance might scare them off again. I would like to press everybody to think long and hard about this.
<br>
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
You're talking AUS $ or US$ ??? [Re: phill] #723
07/28/01 12:07 PM
07/28/01 12:07 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
Phill,
<br>
<br>I think we're on the same line here. I just would, like to replace your 7500 for the 83 % rules 7550 mm. I'm sure you won't object to that.
<br>
<br>BTW we forget another thing. Guys we'll aslo have to SOLO this genaker.
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br><br><br>

Attached Files
1133- (173 downloads)

Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Framework so far [Re: Wouter] #724
07/30/01 03:50 PM
07/30/01 03:50 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 183
john p Offline
member
john p  Offline
member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 183
I can live with the smaller spinnaker, |I was not taking into account the one up sailing option, so I think unless we go for different size spinnakers between the two 17.5 sq m is ok, I agree with you on using ISAF I only went for Texel to get the bigger spinnaker in, I also agree with you on 2.6 m beam, funnily enough we were testing a 2.6 m wide platform yesterday and it worked fine.
<br>
<br>draw height set at 7.5 is lower than I'd really like but I'm not that fussed, incidently we used a 21 sq m spin at the weekend set 30cm below the top of the mast the boat was ballistic, unfortunately we ran aground at full speed (24.8 mph on a gps). The mast held up.
<br>
<br>We are very enthusiastic about this project and will produce a boat as soon as we all agree the rules
<br>
<br>Anyway the only thing I'd like to specify now is board length, board length and area is a part of the ISAf formula so to keep at 101 boards will have to be regulated or else people with longer thin boards will have to lose some sail, we have experimented with boards between 450mm and 750mm long, 250mm wide, I think 650 x 250 works well but some limit needs to be set to save recalculating sail area for individual boats, any comments.
<br>
<br><br><br>

Attached Files
1193- (169 downloads)

John Pierce

[email]stealthmarine@btinternet.com
/email]
Re: Framework so far [Re: john p] #725
07/30/01 06:01 PM
07/30/01 06:01 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,449
P
phill Offline

veteran
phill  Offline

veteran
P

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,449
John,
<br>In calculating the board length x width I assume this is just the area below the keel?
<br>
<br>Phill<br><br>

Attached Files
1199- (176 downloads)

I know that the voices in my head aint real,
but they have some pretty good ideas.
There is no such thing as a quick fix and I've never had free lunch!

Re: Framework so far [Re: john p] #726
07/30/01 06:09 PM
07/30/01 06:09 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
John,
<br>
<br>I'm very pleased with your commitment of actually producing a F16HP. This is really more than I hoped for when we started.
<br>
<br>But I need to beg for time, with the name change conversion , grammer checking of the homepage , structural analysis and advice on experimental setups and developing the performance model for equalisation and the give a definate answer on the outstanding topics like max width and max sailarea I really have no time left !!
<br>
<br>Good point on the boards but it has to wait a bit. It will be put on the to-do list.
<br>
<br>The comming two weeks I'll be consilidating what weve got now and prepare the choices we have on topics like genaker hoist etc. so we can all decide what is best after everybody having reviewed the same options.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br>
<br><br><br>


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: Framework so far [Re: phill] #727
07/30/01 06:12 PM
07/30/01 06:12 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 183
john p Offline
member
john p  Offline
member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 183
Yes Phil<br><br>

Attached Files
1202- (185 downloads)

John Pierce

[email]stealthmarine@btinternet.com
/email]
Re: spinnaker draw height [Re: phill] #728
07/31/01 06:55 AM
07/31/01 06:55 AM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 344
Arkansas, USA
Kirt Offline
enthusiast
Kirt  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 344
Arkansas, USA
Phill-
<br>That is the height I am currently using, which is the one recommended by the Taipan builders, AHPC and Goodall sails (and I suspect will be the height that will be "class legal" eventually?).
<br>
<br>Kirt<br><br>Kirt Simmons
<br>Taipan #159, "A" cat US 48

Attached Files
1226- (222 downloads)

Kirt Simmons Taipan #159, "A" cat US 48
Re: Framework so far [Re: john p] #729
07/31/01 09:51 AM
07/31/01 09:51 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,449
P
phill Offline

veteran
phill  Offline

veteran
P

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,449
John,
<br>
<br>Thanks.
<br>
<br>The Taipan class rulles require the boards to be between 290mm and 330mm from leading to trailing edge when they leave the case. And mine are 290mm.
<br>I'll check to see how far the boards go down below the keel.
<br>
<br><br><br>

Attached Files
1234- (205 downloads)

I know that the voices in my head aint real,
but they have some pretty good ideas.
There is no such thing as a quick fix and I've never had free lunch!

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Damon Linkous, phill, Rolf_Nilsen 

Search

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 426 guests, and 84 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