Announcements
New Discussions
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Re: SL 16 might expand the Formula 16 Class? [Re: Matt M] #97462
01/30/07 03:58 PM
01/30/07 03:58 PM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,718
St Petersburg FL
Robi Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Robi  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,718
St Petersburg FL
Mary maybe you were not clear on what you wanted or suggested. Let me ask you this so we do not waste any more valuable resources or effort.

No one will not permit a SL16 to race against a F16 straight up. We all know it measures under the F16 rules. But do you want the SL16 to be acepted as a F16? or do you want the F16 class just let them race with us straight up?

Like I have said in various posts. No F16er will prohibit any SL16er sail against them. But I do not think the SL16 should be considered or added to the F16 lineup.

In other words Me, personally do not think the SL16 should be considered a F16 when it is not. Now race straight up with the F16 I do not see a problem there.

--Advertisement--
Re: SL 16 might expand the Formula 16 Class? [Re: Dermot] #97463
01/30/07 04:45 PM
01/30/07 04:45 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 337
Victoria, Australia
C2 Mike Offline
enthusiast
C2 Mike  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 337
Victoria, Australia
Quote
I doubt if anyone would have the neck or nerve to take out a measuring tape, if a SL16 turned up at a F16 event <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />


Doesn't the class have an official measurement cert for each boat??? If not, how do you know if *any* boat complies with the rules?

Tiger Mike

Re: SL 16 might expand the Formula 16 Class? [Re: Wouter] #97464
01/30/07 05:05 PM
01/30/07 05:05 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 337
Victoria, Australia
C2 Mike Offline
enthusiast
C2 Mike  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 337
Victoria, Australia
Quote


I think Mary is absolutely spot on here.

In all the sail measurements I've seen over the years it is not uncommon at all to see the sails cut 0.05 sq. mtr to small by sailmakers. They often do this to not have their sails made uncompliant by a measuring official who pulls harder on a measuring tapes then his collegues. And to allow for some stretching of the sail over time.

Most sailmakers try to end up at 0.03 sq. mtr. smaller the absolute limit. I think many may find that the SL 16 jib will actually measure in under F16 rules if the sail is measured when absolutely new.

I have seen alot of jibs that were between 0.05 and 0.15 sq. mtr. smaller then the absolute limit. There were even a few that were no less then 0.30 sq.mtr. smaller (some sailmakers can't read measuring tapes properly themselfs.)

So indeed while technically some are correct that 3.75 sq. mtr. jib is not a 3.70 sq. mtr. jib I think we may find that 3/4 of the SL16's measure in as F16's just the same.

Wouter


I'm guessing that the rules are written that sails shall have a maximum area and stipulate as to how they are measured???

From there surely the sailmaker would be expected to use that number as a maximum figure and build any tolerance to be in the smaller direction when they are assembling their sails??? If the class deems that a larger jib to be acceptable then change the rule so that all sailors can take advantage of it.

The simple answer would be for any SL16 owner wanting to sail as F16 to measure their jib and modify it if it is oversize (shaving a few mm off the foot should be enough).

In most classes it's the skippers responsibility to ensure that their boat complies with the class rules at all times and this is one rule that should also apply to F16.

Cheers,
Tiger Mike

Re: SL 16 might expand the Formula 16 Class? [Re: Matt M] #97465
01/30/07 05:08 PM
01/30/07 05:08 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 337
Victoria, Australia
C2 Mike Offline
enthusiast
C2 Mike  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 337
Victoria, Australia
Quote
This seems like a lot of discusion for something that is pretty straight forward.

If the boat is measured and does not violate any formula limits then it is a fully compliant F16. Theoretical performance has nothing to do with it.

For non-national/World level racing, where full complaiance should be mandatory, bring on anyone who wants to race. A well sailed SL16 will end up beating a poorly sailed F16, and with the exception of a hand full of people in the world this will be the case on any boat.


Exactly!

Tiger Mike

Re: SL 16 might expand the Formula 16 Class? [Re: C2 Mike] #97466
01/30/07 07:07 PM
01/30/07 07:07 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 50
G
gary145 Offline
journeyman
gary145  Offline
journeyman
G

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 50
Hi
ive sailed an SL at the europeans at Brightlingsea, good fun,tended to nosedive when it got windy, more fun!
I'd say they are a great choice as a youth boat or indeed for anyone light who doesnt want the extra power of something like a Spitfire.
It felt like a smaller heavier Spitfire with skegs.
Let them race if any turn up.
They will soon be wanting to buy one of your boats WITH BOARDS, this is the biggest difference.
I doubt if they will point anything like as high, but they should join in anyway.

Re: SL 16 might expand the Formula 16 Class? [Re: C2 Mike] #97467
01/30/07 08:21 PM
01/30/07 08:21 PM
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,037
Central California
ejpoulsen Offline
old hand
ejpoulsen  Offline
old hand

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,037
Central California
Quote
The simple answer would be for any SL16 owner wanting to sail as F16 to measure their jib and modify it if it is oversize (shaving a few mm off the foot should be enough).


Exactly.

The F16 class rules don't need to specify this or that boat is "in" the class or not. If any boat shows up and fits within the formula (okay to have a shorter mast, etc), then it can sail as an "F16."


Eric Poulsen
A-class USA 203
Ultimate 20
Central California
Re: SL 16 might expand the Formula 16 Class? [Re: Robi] #97468
01/31/07 09:23 AM
01/31/07 09:23 AM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,558
Key Largo, FL & Put-in-Bay, OH...
Mary Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel
Mary  Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,558
Key Largo, FL & Put-in-Bay, OH...
Robi, I did not word my initial post very well. At that point I should not have used the word "accept," because it was thought that the SL16 was totally conforming, so it did not need any "acceptance." All I was trying to say was that an invitation should be extended to the SL16 class so they are aware there is a class they can race with until they have enough boats for their own class.

Now that it appears the SL16 is NOT totally compliant because of the jib situation, it is important that the F16 class "accept" the SL16's to race with them.

It would not be appropriate for them to be added to the existing list of non-conforming boats that were grandfathered into the class originally. So I hope that is not what you thought I was suggesting.

And I also think the Hobie 16 with spinnaker should be invited to race with the Formula 16's. Both of these youth boats will continue to be used for quite some time because either one or the other will be used for ISAF Youth World Championships, depending on which boat is most available in the host country.

Both the SL16 and the Hobie 16 with spin are misfits on their own and the F16 class is the only one I can think of that they can race in on a boat-for-boat basis.

It would be a nice contribution by the F16 class to youth sailing if these two youth boats can be invited to race in all F16 events except for Nationals or North Americans.

I hope this clarifies my thinking, fuzzy though it may be. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Page 3 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Damon Linkous, phill, Rolf_Nilsen 

Search

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 440 guests, and 92 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